Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

journals.asm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 217 posts

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#101

Post by rossdavidh »

m0llusk wrote: post #57

The article notes that a lab leak or gain of function research or both are suspected because research with cultivated influenza strains was common at that time. In contrast, attempts by researchers at Wuhan to consistently cultivate coronavirus were unsuccessful. That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research. All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know…

Whatever one thinks the optimal response to a pandemic should be, the fact that several nations of western Europe (e.g. France) with much different policies, have per capita mortality the same or higher, suggests that the policies used were not a major determinant of the outcome.

If you plot per capita mortality for France and Sweden, they are almost identical, swapping places five times so far. Currently Sweden is slightly lower, but really they're about the same. France and Sweden have policies at the opposite ends of the spectrum. If the differences between those two countries are not enough to make a measurable difference in mortality, then none of the policies used in western countries are making a significant difference one way or the other.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#102

Post by EMM_386 »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #68
radu_floricica wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How on earth is wanting to know why I was locked in my house for months with men with guns patrolling the streets.... "misplaced"? This is what 50 years of postmodernism and cultural relativism broughts us. "Why" doesn't matter, don't search beyond what the consensus is telling you.

Because if we had a competent strategy for dealing with the virus, you wouldn't have been locked in your house for months. This is entirely a failure of government. The origin is for all intents and purposes irrelevant. "Why" ultimately doesn't matter because viruses can just spontaneously evolve in carrier animals, in a lab or by whatever other means causes a mutation where it is now infectious to us. People searchi…

> This is entirely a failure of government. The origin is for all intents and purposes irrelevant.

Whos government? This is a global issue. It doesn't care about governments.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#103

Post by oftenadequate »

rayiner wrote: post #78
m0llusk wrote: post #57

The article notes that a lab leak or gain of function research or both are suspected because research with cultivated influenza strains was common at that time. In contrast, attempts by researchers at Wuhan to consistently cultivate coronavirus were unsuccessful. That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research. All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know…

> All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know that there will be new viruses. What matters is how we respond to them. In this case the US response was completely botched. It’s worth talking about better versus worse covid response, but that’s missing the forest for the trees. Most of the G7 didn’t do that much better: from Germany to Italy, and including the US, they’re all in the 1,200 to 2,200 de…

Your COVID numbers are woefully, embarassingly inaccurate.

US: 41,587,821 Cases; 666,702 Deaths; 328.2M people. ~2,000 deaths per million.

Germany: 4,127,158 Cases; 92,906 Deaths; 83.13M people. ~1,100 deaths per million.

Australia: 85,629 Cases; 1,162 Deaths; 25.36M people. ~45 deaths per million.

While the difference between the first two is significant, one of these is really not like the others, and I'm still glad to live in a country that values human life. Also getting pretty sick of ignorant muppets talking about "military-enforced lockdown" here - had a good laugh about that with mates this afternoon over beers in the park this afternoon.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#104

Post by slibhb »

m0llusk wrote: post #57

The article notes that a lab leak or gain of function research or both are suspected because research with cultivated influenza strains was common at that time. In contrast, attempts by researchers at Wuhan to consistently cultivate coronavirus were unsuccessful. That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research. All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know…

> All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know that there will be new viruses. What matters is how we respond to them. In this case the US response was completely botched.

As far as I can tell, there are no grounds for claiming that the response to covid was botched. Botched compared to what? Also, when people talk like this, they always end up saying that we should respond to novel viruses by locking everything down right away, imposing quarantines, stopping flights, and so on.

I see two problems with that. First, covid was already spreading globally when we became aware of it. And second, we are unable to tell if a novel virus will turn into a pandemic (scientists disagreed about SARS, MERS, and covid on this count). Adopting a policy that minimizes risks will be incredibly costly and often wasteful.

To the extent that we can prepare for novel viruses, it seems to me that we should focus on developing fast and efficient machinery for creating and mass-producing vaccines. We did quite well at this (and so I don't think our response to covid was botched) but we could clearly do better. Imagine if, after isolating a virus in a lab, it took 3 months to create a vaccine and begin mass production. That's what we should aim for.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#105

Post by goolulusaurs »

Why the hell would you put a virology lab in the middle of a huge city with millions of people? I am not a virologist, but to me it seems like if covid was a lab-leak then it could have been avoided very easily just by having the lab in the middle of nowhere, like in the desert or the artic. Instead of the whole world having to go into lock down, with millions dying, just put the lab in a remote location, and make it so that before anyone leaves they have to quarantine for 2 weeks. This seems obvious, why isn't it standard protocol?

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#106

Post by flybrand »

m0llusk wrote: post #57

The article notes that a lab leak or gain of function research or both are suspected because research with cultivated influenza strains was common at that time. In contrast, attempts by researchers at Wuhan to consistently cultivate coronavirus were unsuccessful. That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research. All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know…

At the outset, I agreed that research into the origin is misplaced.

However as time went on, a scenario emerged that made the origin story important - it’s about the ethics and integrity of the system.

If the people and institutions at the origin lack integrity, and they are the same things we depend on for the solutions brought forward - then the origin story matters a lot.

If you have a vendor that is good, and they make a mistake - you can trust them to fix it.

If you have a dishonest vendor, then the last thing you should do is trust them to fix a problem they created.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#107

Post by autoliteInline »

m0llusk wrote: post #57

The article notes that a lab leak or gain of function research or both are suspected because research with cultivated influenza strains was common at that time. In contrast, attempts by researchers at Wuhan to consistently cultivate coronavirus were unsuccessful. That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research. All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know…

>All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced.

I think it matters quite a lot, but not for scientific reasons.

If the point of origin is sloppy lab practice (maybe it's impossible to not be sloppy) and everyone lied about it, I want to know everything. Trust is a hard thing to re-gain but I really want to know where we all stand. Realistic calibration of your position vs. power centers is always a good thing.

Personally I don't think responses were particularly botched, although it's tempting to think so for other political reasons. It's likely more a lack of real knowledge by anyone on what really makes for good public policy and the inability to do what it takes in any case.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#109

Post by autoliteInline »

rossdavidh wrote: post #101
m0llusk wrote: post #57

The article notes that a lab leak or gain of function research or both are suspected because research with cultivated influenza strains was common at that time. In contrast, attempts by researchers at Wuhan to consistently cultivate coronavirus were unsuccessful. That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research. All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know…

Whatever one thinks the optimal response to a pandemic should be, the fact that several nations of western Europe (e.g. France) with much different policies, have per capita mortality the same or higher, suggests that the policies used were not a major determinant of the outcome. If you plot per capita mortality for France and Sweden, they are almost identical, swapping places five times so far. Currently Sweden is s…

Exactly. There's a bunch of opportunities for understanding by looking at different political units, but it's all lost in the posturing.

Re: The Reemergent 1977 H1N1 Strain and the Gain-of-Function Debate (2015)

#110

Post by flybrand »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #92
m0llusk wrote: post #57

The article notes that a lab leak or gain of function research or both are suspected because research with cultivated influenza strains was common at that time. In contrast, attempts by researchers at Wuhan to consistently cultivate coronavirus were unsuccessful. That is why they decided to work with chimeras instead of pursuing gain of function research. All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. We know…

Your logic is absolutely drenched in bias. It makes me curious what you do for a living and where you’re from. You’re argument is like saying that instead of controlling the use of firearms, everyone should just walk around in bulletproof vests. It’s completely and utterly backwards. It is far more efficient to stop these events at the source.

Continuing on with the firearm analogy:

If I’m hunting, and a misfire causes an accident, it matters how it happens. If it is the gun maker’s fault - I don’t purchase from them anymore.

The origin story matters if we depend on a dishonest (possibly) vendor to cure a problem where they were part of the initial failure.

Post reply on HN