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

151–160 of 217 posts

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

#151

Post by goolulusaurs »

indymike wrote: post #148
goolulusaurs wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if the price is the lives of millions and the whole world in lockdown? We might be better off if you don't take the job then. Also you ignored the rest of the sentence you are quoting and my examples of highly skilled scientist who are willing to make that sacrifice in Antartica and the ISS.

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

#152

Post by EMM_386 »

skohan wrote: post #115
EMM_386 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. What matters is how we respond to them. We won't be around to respond to them when the next engineered one is potentially much worse. This is an enormously dangerous global issue, we need to address origins.

Yes absolutely it's incredibly relevant if world-crippling viruses are being engineered in labs, and should be a topic for public policy discussion. COVID has been many times more damaging to the world than the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we're at the point where science is capable of creating such pathogens, then we have to also consider the fact that this technology can make its way into the hands o…

> Yes absolutely it's incredibly relevant if world-crippling viruses are being engineered in labs, and should be a topic for public policy discussion.

The problem here is that countries can wrap this research under the banner of "natsec" and then there can be no further discussion. I see no way around that outside of crossing our collective fingers.

> COVID has been many times more damaging to the world than the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Precisely. And this can be considered the "easy" version compared to what could potentially be created.

It's a nightmare scenario, and it's far more dangerous than nuclear weapons (unless that resulted in the end of civilization / "mutually assured destruction").

It could literally wipe out the planet before we have time to respond to it. Similar in that regard I suppose.

> we have to also consider the fact that this technology can make its way into the hands of bad actors

Those would have to be some really, really bad actors if they are willing to take out the entire planet, crossing all ideological and political boundaries.

I'm sure smarter minds than me are keeping an eye on this.

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

#153

Post by ModernMech »

EGreg wrote: post #143
bildung wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What’s your definition of “recent”? Some of us remember when HIV starting infecting our friends. It doesn’t seem that long ago to me.

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

#154

Post by [deleted] »

naruvimama wrote: post #36
ianleeclark wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fair bit of antagonism and peculiar beliefs from what I saw. Referring to HN as "mostly Marxist" is a prime example.

Just like in the real world, there certainly are ideological groups. While some are adhoc others are highly organized. So once you are on target or even a mild comment that challenges their ideology gets heavily down voted. We see the long terms effects of this behavior in the real world, not just individuals but institutions stay away from questioning certain ideologies as a norm.

[deleted]

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

#155

Post by indymike »

goolulusaurs wrote: post #151
indymike wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Even if the price is the lives of millions and the whole world in lockdown? We might be better off if you don't take the job then. Also you ignored the rest of the sentence you are quoting and my examples of highly skilled scientist who are willing to make that sacrifice in Antartica and the ISS.

> Even if the price is the lives of millions and the whole world in lockdown?

I don't have to research gain of functionality in virus. I can chose to research something else. Yes, some people are willing to do extreme things in pursuit of their careers, but most people, even highly educated people have things they value more than their job.

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

#156

Post by angelzen »

bildung wrote: post #96
rayiner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Response type absolutely matters. Sweden has 10x the death rate of Norway, for example. Norway, Finland, Denmark, even Cuba, a poor country with 3x the population density of the US is significantly below 700. Australia stands at 45, not 700, BTW.

As it happens, we don't live happily ever after unless the evil covid kills us. There are plenty of other death causes, some directly caused by lockdowns like delayed health care, suicide, OD, increased poverty. What we really want to look at is excess mortality, and possibly excess 'quality years lived' for some definition thereof. Some Canadian researchers looked at excess mortality in Canada and found it 3x than 'deaths with covid'.

Covid is a long term issue. It is fairly pointless to compare response outcome for the first year and a half of an extremely contagious mutating endemic virus. Look at a 10 year horizon, possibly longer. Sweden is middle of the pack within Europe if we don't cherrypick, and that outcome could possibly be driven by chance more than anything else.

Speaking of other costs, it is really pathetic what we do to children. At my kid elementary school they detected two kids with covid. No word of severity of symptoms, if any symptoms whatsoever. As a result, the entire grade was sent home packing for weeks, after a whole two weeks of in-person instruction. This when kids have about the same risk for severe covid as for severe flu, and teachers have one of the lowest covid risk of all occupations (!).

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

#157

Post by photochemsyn »

ameminator wrote: post #88
germinalphrase wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I would like to point out that most of the research, at the same Winnipeg lab discussed above, seems to have been shared with/taken by the Chinese military“ The linked article does not support your assertion that “most” research was shared/taken.

You're right. It only provides evidence that a top member of the Chinese military was working with the lab (specifically with Ebola variants), that this was only discovered after he had access to the lab and that the RCMP are not releasing details on their investigation on the extent that "intellectual property" has been passed on. So, you're right, maybe I should have left it at "infiltrated by the Chinese military"…

I don't think the person made any attempt to hide their affiliation, did they? This kind of international cooperation on infectious disease is pretty normal, i.e. that's how smallpox was eradicated, and it's also normal for military branches to have their medical services work on this as well.

The issue, of course, is whether this is also cover for development of nation-state biological warfare programs, as this was a tactic used in the past to collect deadly viruses and bacteria by the Soviet, American, British and Japanese biological weapons programs, at least. Secrecy only encourages this kind of insanity, too.

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

#158

Post by EGreg »

ModernMech wrote: post #153
EGreg wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What’s your definition of “recent”? Some of us remember when HIV starting infecting our friends. It doesn’t seem that long ago to me.

I mentioned HIV in my comment, speaking about recent. The reply mentioned all kinds of viruses besides HIV that weren’t recent — so it was a strawman.

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

#159

Post by EGreg »

watertom wrote: post #121
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.

AIDS, (HIV) spent a long time in human the population before it became a serious problem.

Right. I didn’t really mean the speed but the infectiousness, because people were asymptomatic when infecting each other during the incubation period. It was just really long with AIDS

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

#160

Post by fallingknife »

bildung wrote: post #96
rayiner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Response type absolutely matters. Sweden has 10x the death rate of Norway, for example. Norway, Finland, Denmark, even Cuba, a poor country with 3x the population density of the US is significantly below 700. Australia stands at 45, not 700, BTW.

Cuba isn't comparable because the age structure of it's population will be different. 90% of covid deaths happen in the 65 and over cohort so mortality will be drastically lower.
Post reply on HN