Lab Leak 2.0?
bprice.substack.com
Lab Leak 2.0?
1–10 of 319 posts
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#2None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused.
Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some of these conspiracy-theory vendors would prefer, "be mad at science in general."
So, what is the call to action here? Stop researching gain of function entirely?
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#3None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
>stop researching gain of function entirely?
Yes
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#4None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
> Stop researching gain of function entirely?
Yes, this was very explicitly stated. And this is nowhere near the first call to do so (a lot of very respected scientists were calling for a stop to GoF research before the pandemic).
Whatever claims GoF research had beforehand of helping w/ pandemic preparedness have evaporated, because none of the successful responses to the pandemic (vaccines, antivirals) have relied on GoF research whatsoever. It appears to a high risk with no reward.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#5None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
[deleted]
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#6None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
There are a lot of implications if this is a lab leak, including:
- Are labs involved in this research sufficiently secure? Do we need to raise the standard of security?
- Is the cost-benefit of gain of research worth it?
- Should China be forced to pay reparations/ sanctioned for hiding the source?
All of these conversations depend on whether its a lab leak.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#7None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
> So, what is the call to action here? Stop researching gain of function entirely?
I'd say it's this:
> We need to decide whom to believe: the people with a lot to lose and their not-very-parsimonious or plausible-sounding explanations, which receive almost all the media attention; or the people with expertise and parsimonious explanations who don’t have a dog in this fight.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#8None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
There are a lot of implications if this is a lab leak, including: - Are labs involved in this research sufficiently secure? Do we need to raise the standard of security? - Is the cost-benefit of gain of research worth it? - Should China be forced to pay reparations/ sanctioned for hiding the source? All of these conversations depend on whether its a lab leak.
I would add to that: "is it an intentional means of destabilizing the West?"
To be clear: I see no evidence that Omicron is even a second lab-leak, much less that it's part of a sinister plot. My point is that there are immediate geopolitical implications, in addition to the scientific and public-health implications you have highlighted.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#9All of the GoF research procedures I've read stress natural evolution, but still rely on random mutations at the end of the day, which would still leave you with a natural looking count of silent mutations in the general case.
As a GoF researcher you don't want to cull 'silent' mutations because those are a major source of building blocks for useful mutations.
Re: Lab Leak 2.0?
#10None of these Substack-based lab-leak hysteria pieces ever address "so what?" I see nothing here to convince me that Omicron is a lab leak as opposed to an animal reservoir, where the author includes "seems to have come from mice" as evidence for the former and not the latter, which is confused. Regardless, there is nothing actionable about any origin theory aside from "be mad at some unnamed scientist" or, as some o…
Millions of people are dead. I think it's worth having an objective public debate about what steps would be appropriate to reduce the risk of this happening again. I don't see that "be mad at science" has anything to do with an insistence on an honest exploration and testing of hypotheses.
Neil deGrasse Tyson sums up the scientific approach as follows: "Test ideas by experiment and observation. Build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. And question everything." Cosmos (2014).
Why is that approach considered so anathema when it comes to hunting down the killer of millions of people?