Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab, but feared debate could hurt

Post by baobabKoodaa » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:41 PM UTC

geraneum wrote: post #491

jacquesm wrote: post #341

If this comment thread is the way the self proclaimed smartest forum on the web deals with articles like this then we're doomed. This article contributes zero actual evidence, is littered with out of context quotes (including of all places the title), doesn't appear to understand the science or the probabilities involved and finally is clearly written with an agenda. It shouldn't have been posted to HN in the first p…

It's naive to think that HN is necessarily better than an arbitrary Subreddit in terms of quality of conversations and depth of discussions, especially on non-tech related material. I don't know why one might think it's better/worse than a Twitter thread or Facebook post when it comes to controversial topics. You can find smart and dumb people here. Also, going against the narrative of the comment section may have ne…

Post by tim333 » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:43 PM UTC

KingOfCoders wrote: post #485

edumucelli wrote: post #479

I have read this ( https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-... ) about the origins of Covid and one phrase that called my attention was: "Dr. Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University, said that from the very first reports of a novel bat-related coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, it took him “a nanosecond or a picosecond” to consider a link t…

I don't know who is right. A lab that does bat related research and is located where bats have traditionally shown these viruses, it's hard to determine cause and effect. "When I first heard about the Arctic, I thought about that Arctic ice research institute in a nano second. There are only two places. There are not a dozen places, it's two places."

Post by tim333 » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:45 PM UTC

johncena33 wrote: post #46

737min wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, clear animal reservoirs, viral lineage, old samples from human or animal infections with precursor variants. No position on the question, just answering your question about proof.

That would only disprove the genetic manipulation part, but not necessarily lab leak. A WIV lab staff can easily contract virus from a bat inside the lab. This essentially what happened in Taiwan, where a lab staff got infected with COVID from a mouse [1]. To disprove lab leak you also have to show either 1. WIV or any other labs in Wuhan didn't have any virus samples that can be an ancestor of SARS-CoV2 2. we can es…

Post by tim333 » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:49 PM UTC

philjohn wrote: post #273

xqcgrek2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - an animal host or reservoir is found. It's unusual after 2 years none has been found.

We still aren't 100% sure about Ebola's reservoir, so that isn't necessarily a smoking gun.

Post by q1w2 » Wed, Jan 12, 2022, 2:52 PM UTC

interestica wrote: post #643

cocoggu wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the title of the article is highly misleading. Using "Scientists" instead of "Some scientists" implies that the great majority of the scientists believed in this hypothesis, and there is no evidence for that.

That's one of the tough parts about headline interpretations because you're right. I think editors use it as a sort of con knowing it can leave them with a way out. Here's an NPR headline using the same term that could be seen as just as misleading: "Scientists Debunk Lab Accident Theory Of Pandemic Emergence" April 22, 2020 4:08 PM ET https://www.npr.org/2020/04/22/841925672/scientists-debunk-l...