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

Lab Leak 2.0?

bprice.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–319 of 319 posts

Re: Lab Leak 2.0?

#311

Post by dljones »

Jyaif wrote: post #258
marktucker wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be the standard approach, but the question is how else it could have happened other than some GoF procedure. Any idea what the odds are of this ratio happening by chance?

> how else it could have happened other than some GoF procedure There are at least 2 other possibilities: * The virus could have stayed alive in an immunocompromised person for months and accumulated mutations there. * The virus could have jumped to animals (e.g. mouses), accumulate mutations, and jump back to humans.

Neither one of those hypotheses accounts for the four weirdnesses described in the article. So they don't seem like very good hypotheses.

Similarly "it came from an animal" that we've never found two years later is not a hypothesis that accounts for the information we have about the first COVID-19 outbreak either.

To me that sounds very much like OJ vowing to find the real killer, but somehow he never did.

Re: Lab Leak 2.0?

#312

Post by dljones »

rdw wrote: post #283

It repeatedly asserts that immunocompromised patients cannot have antibodies ("weirdness" 3 & 4), but, immunocompromization is a spectrum. Many people can produce antibodies but not as many as normal. If the piece hinges on getting this pretty basic element wrong, how wrong is it about some of the more sophisticated analyses?

Not what it says.

Immunocompromised people, in order for their "omicron" to develop resistance to the various treatments available (the monoclonal antibodies) must have been exposed to those treatments. If they were exposed to those treatments, they were being followed medically. If they were being followed medically, and receiving long-term treatments, it's then odd that they didn't infect a single other person in a year and a half.

On the other hand, there's the somewhat bigoted implication that "oh there are a lot of remote people in Africa that don't come in contact with anyone else." Well, then how did their omicron develop resistance to all the fancy treatments?

Either it's an immune compromised patient who never came in contact with anyone else, and the specific resistance to monoclonal antibodies, which they never received, is not explained.

Or it's an immune compromised patient who received intensive treatments for a long time, in which case the lack of any intermediate variants ever being documented is not explained.

S/he didn't say immunocompromised people don't have antibodies.

S/he says mice don't have human antibodies, so if the "mouse hypothesis" is correct, how did the mice, unless they were lab mice, get the immunity to all these human treatments?

Re: Lab Leak 2.0?

#313

Post by epgui »

TeeMassive wrote: post #302
epgui wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaps also appear because evolution is not a smooth process, and once in a while a large number of mutations are selected for. We see the same type of pattern even in vitro. Moreover, mutations are not always well described by gaussian processes: the rate of mutation can be seen as having a fat tailed distribution.

That's not the way it works. Mutations has to be incremental because most mutations are not viable or doesn't provide any reproductive gain. Having multiple functional mutations all at once happening in a very short amount of time and being naturally selected in big enough number of infections is very very improbable. > mutations are not always well described by gaussian processes: the rate of mutation can be seen as…

I’m a biochemist.

Re: Lab Leak 2.0?

#314

Post by alfon »

acconrad wrote: post #265

I’m flagging this as misinformation and surprised this is scoring so high on HN. This author presumes every major VoC stemmed from a lab leak. From the wild strain to Delta to Omicron. This is sensationalist, unsubstantiated claims with weak supporting evidence.

Note that the author does not imply that Delta originated from a lab, but rather that Delta leaked from a lab at the end of 2021, and cites a supporting source.

Re: Lab Leak 2.0?

#315

Post by XFrequentist »

mike00632 wrote: post #303
throwaway829 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you mean by quoting that but there's not much controversy that Delta leaked from a Biosafety Level-3 facility in Taipei. https://fortune.com/2021/12/10/taiwan-investigates-covid-lab... https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4371080 https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-lab-worker-mouse-bite-covid-...

You don't understand why I would challenge you to cite your sources in a thread discussing COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation? Not to mention, I think it's pretty clear to both of us that this "well documented event" is not common knowledge to people who don't follow COVID conspiracy theories.

I think this event qualifies as “well documented” by any reasonable standard, there was official public disclosure and an open investigation.

As one quick example, here’s a news clip including an interview with the Taiwanese health minister discussing details of the (then) ongoing investigation:

https://youtu.be/ecpNq0jz7cs

You can trivially find many more official statements about the event and subsequent investigation, if you like.

Re: Lab Leak 2.0?

#318

Post by amai »

I believe the theory for an accidental lab leak in Wuhan is more convincing, because it actually started near to a lab. Where is the evidence here that the first cases of Omikron were detected near a lab. Are there any labs in South Africa that could be responsible for such a leak?
Post reply on HN