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

141–150 of 217 posts

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

#141

Post by wbl »

tim333 wrote: post #31
rjzzleep wrote: post #15

There's a pretty good discussion(summary) on Covid-19s GoF in the twitter thread below: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1392127958807162884

That discussion from May has to some extent been made out of date by subsequent information revealed by a freedom of information request showing >new viruses increased viral load in lung tissues up to 10,000 fold https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1436301383163129871 You can debate whether that counts as gain of function research - the virus definitely gained as a result of the experiment but you can argue the experi…

You never know whether something is going to work thr first time you do it.

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

#142

Post by slumpt_ »

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…

In the US’ defense, the response of many countries - including and perhaps foremost China - were botched. They were actively suppressing information about the virus early on when it could have significantly helped other countries prepare for what was coming.

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

#143

Post by EGreg »

bildung wrote: post #93
EGreg wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s true. I don’t remember any other viruses being this contagious for a long time. Avian flu, swine flu, not nearly as contagious as Delta and spreading asymptomatically. Ebola - not as contagious. Perhaps AIDS was the closest.

Measles, Chickenpox, Rubella, Mumps, Polio, Pertussis, Smallpox, HIV as you mentioned, SARS, Diphteria and the common cold all have basic reproduction numbers >= original Covid, per wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number

None of them were “novel” or recently appeared — as the ones I mentioned

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

#144

Post by tzs »

skohan wrote: post #98
ImaCake wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has a history of responding poorly to pandemics. They let HIV rip through their population before getting serious about it. Regan famously denied it was even happening. It is interesting to contrast this with Australia's quick public health response that saved a lot of lives. It is easy to see similarities with COVID responses, but two timepoints and n=2 do not make for quality statistics. Hopefully the USA d…

Different societies will have different strengths and weaknesses. The US' priority on individual liberty will generally run counter to solutions which require collective action. But the US system has been fairly good at fostering innovation for instance.

I don't think that is historically accurate. The US had many large epidemics of diseases such cholera, typhus, yellow fever, and bubonic plague, not to mention influenza in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The priority on individual liberty didn't get in the way then. Quarantines and lockdowns and mask requirements were imposed and enforced. They even had vaccine or inoculation mandates for some of them.

Heck, arguably an inoculation mandate played an important role in the successful creation of the US. 90% of the loses among the Continental regulars were due to disease with small pox being the most serious.

Inoculation was widespread in Europe and most of the British army was immune, giving them a large advantage. People were still afraid of the risks of inoculation in the colonies and in 1776 the Continental Congress issues a proclamation prohibiting army surgeons from inoculating.

In early 1777 George Washington informed the Continental Congress that he was going to mandate inoculation and told his commanding officers to do so. They inoculated the ~3/4 of the army that had not already had smallpox and all new recruits.

Smallpox continued to rage throughout the war, but no longer in the Continental army. From that point on not a single Continental regiment was incapacitated by smallpox.

On the British side the actual British soldiers were also immune to smallpox, but not so the slaves who had chosen to fight for the British in exchange for freedom or the Native Americans who sided with the British. Those groups were devastated by smallpox.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

indymike wrote: post #113
goolulusaurs wrote: post #105

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…

> This seems obvious, why isn't it standard protocol? Would you take a job that had that requirement? Want a few days off? 2 week quarantine. Would investors be ok with this? Want to pay expensive PHD for vacation plus quarantine time (which could be days off x 10 working days every time). The problem is that the workers in the lab are just as human, have the same needs for relationships and contact, and some have en…

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by photochemsyn »

Virology labs can play important roles in the eradication of infectious disease around the world, but they must be stringently and transparently regulated. They are needed because if we have a natural outbreak of an infectious novel virus, labs need to be able to rapidly isolate, identify and characterize (sequence) the virus. From there vaccines can be made, mode of transmission can be analyzed, etc.

However, there's a huge risk - concentrating all these viruses in one place means accidents can result in infection of lab workers or other releases. There are many examples, such as the 1978 smallpox case in Birmingham:

"It turned out that the building that Parker worked in also contained a research laboratory, one of a handful where smallpox was studied by scientists who were trying to contribute to the eradication effort. Some papers reported that the lab was badly mismanaged, with important precautions ignored because of haste. (The doctor who ran the lab died by suicide shortly after Parker was diagnosed.) Somehow, smallpox escaped the lab to infect an employee elsewhere in the building. Through sheer luck and a rapid response from health authorities, including a quarantine of more than 300 people, the deadly error didn’t turn into an outright pandemic." Vox Mar 2019 (pre-pandemic)

As fas as Sars-CoV-2, it's very plausible that it accidentally escaped from the Wuhan lab, which housed bats and mice infected with a whole variety of bat coronaviruses and which had a very active coronavirus research program. The lack of governmental transparency in the early days also helped the virus spread, i.e. an early quarantine was possible but was not implemented.

Probably the only real long-term fix will involve a lot more spending on public health infrastructure and vaccination globally. At present the virus is circulating in poorer communities around the world and new variants are likely to continue to be spawned as a result.

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

#147

Post by ModernMech »

tim333 wrote: post #128
ModernMech wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point being made is that even if you stop all pandemics with a lab leak origin, pandemics will still happen. So at the end of the day if you prove covid was lab leak and put in safeguards that will, with 100% certainty stop pandemics with a lab leak origin, you’re nonetheless going to encourage yet pandemics because they are a fact of nature. Therefore it’s more important to respond pandemics rather than prevent…

Yeah but you should do both. Regulate labs and prepare for pandemics.

No one is saying you shouldn’t do both.

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

#148

Post by indymike »

goolulusaurs wrote: post #117
indymike wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems obvious, why isn't it standard protocol? Would you take a job that had that requirement? Want a few days off? 2 week quarantine. Would investors be ok with this? Want to pay expensive PHD for vacation plus quarantine time (which could be days off x 10 working days every time). The problem is that the workers in the lab are just as human, have the same needs for relationships and contact, and some have en…

Sure that makes sense, but you could crank their pay way up to compensate, build places for their family to stay if they desired like the families of the scientist working on the Manhattan project, present at conferences through teleconferencing. There are scientist who stay in Antarctica for months and the international space station. Yes it would be inconvenient, but look at what (maybe) happens if you don't.

> Sure that makes sense, but you could crank their pay way up to compensate,

Some things aren't for sale. I'm not going to take a job that makes it impossible to see my family on short notice at any price.

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

#149

Post by LMYahooTFY »

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…

I'll simply add to what other comments have said similarly, every aspect of this virus has its place, and the virus's origin is absolutely essential. We'll probably never know, and that's a horrifying thought. How do you learn from a mistake if it's never disclosed?

Frankly, I find the attitude that we should not pay considerable attention to the possibility that we created and lost control of this virus to be worse than the event itself, as it primes us for further catastrophes of the same sort.

The response to this virus having been manufactured and released should be as severe as our response to a nuclear weapon, or perhaps even more so.

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

#150

Post by indymike »

aklsync wrote: post #136
indymike wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems obvious, why isn't it standard protocol? Would you take a job that had that requirement? Want a few days off? 2 week quarantine. Would investors be ok with this? Want to pay expensive PHD for vacation plus quarantine time (which could be days off x 10 working days every time). The problem is that the workers in the lab are just as human, have the same needs for relationships and contact, and some have en…

These questions, while valid, should not matter. People who had to work in Los Alamos would perhaps have preferred a location in Manhattan, too. There is an oversupply of scientists who would do anything to work in their fields. One could also question if this sort of research has ever produced anything valuable (I'm not in the field, genuine question).

> There is an oversupply of scientists who would do anything to work in their fields.

I'm pretty sure that's not true, and assumes that people will rationally accept a bad deal. Personal experience is that the better educated a worker is, the higher their expectations are for how they are treated. Example: tenured faculty at a college.

Post reply on HN