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

Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

#11

Post by coolso »

deaddodo wrote: post #8
srl wrote: post #6

From the Nature medicine paper: > Editors’ note, [30] March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. And from "The Scientist": > Update (March 11, 2020): On social media and news outlets, a the…

Quoted post unavailable.

Given that the vast majority of mainstream article posts are from a place of opposite bias, I think it's a breath of fresh air to have a different bias at the forefront every once in a while.

Re: Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

#12

Post by zozbot234 »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #10
srl wrote: post #6

From the Nature medicine paper: > Editors’ note, [30] March 2020: We are aware that this article is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. And from "The Scientist": > Update (March 11, 2020): On social media and news outlets, a the…

>Scientists say there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaped from a lab. Unfortunately there's no evidence it didn't escape from a lab either, but there are many strong indications that it did. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-coronavirus-lab-leak-v...

> but there are many strong indications that it did.

Nope, there really aren't. We're now finding more and more naturally-evolved viruses in cave-dwelling bats that share plenty of features with SARS-CoV2, including the 'weird' features everyone was talking about at the beginning of the pandemic. All it really takes is to go and look for them. Occam's razor says this virus too is just one of many.

Re: Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

#14

Post by hunterb123 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #12
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Scientists say there is no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus escaped from a lab. Unfortunately there's no evidence it didn't escape from a lab either, but there are many strong indications that it did. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-coronavirus-lab-leak-v...

> but there are many strong indications that it did. Nope, there really aren't. We're now finding more and more naturally-evolved viruses in cave-dwelling bats that share plenty of features with SARS-CoV2, including the 'weird' features everyone was talking about at the beginning of the pandemic. All it really takes is to go and look for them. Occam's razor says this virus too is just one of many.

> All it really takes is to go and look for them

They did, the closest sample is still Ra4991/RaTG13 which was found in a Wuhan mine and transported to the Wuhan virology lab before the outbreak.

Not aware of another confirmed sample found that is closer to SARS-CoV-2:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaTG13

Re: Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

#15

Post by rasz »

vicpara wrote: post #13

We'll find out in 90+ years what really happened when the documents get unclassified. This line of thinking wasn't yet authorised by the US government so it must be fake news until approved.

Not likely. Chinese authorities will demolish whole district and build a stadium in its place if they have to to bury the truth and erase bad memories.

Re: Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

#16

Post by alevskaya »

Sigh. As I've said in other posts, if any experiment of this sort were the source of sars-cov-2, it would be -blindingly- obvious. The synthetic metagenomic experiments looking into spike, etc. leave completely obvious traces, number one being the use of known, characterized viral vectors. Using some random isolates as experimental vectors is not only methodologically pointless and counterproductive, it's vastly more difficult to do.

Re: Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

#17

Post by jiocrag »

hunterb123 wrote: post #14
zozbot234 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there are many strong indications that it did. Nope, there really aren't. We're now finding more and more naturally-evolved viruses in cave-dwelling bats that share plenty of features with SARS-CoV2, including the 'weird' features everyone was talking about at the beginning of the pandemic. All it really takes is to go and look for them. Occam's razor says this virus too is just one of many.

> All it really takes is to go and look for them They did, the closest sample is still Ra4991/RaTG13 which was found in a Wuhan mine and transported to the Wuhan virology lab before the outbreak. Not aware of another confirmed sample found that is closer to SARS-CoV-2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaTG13

Exactly. Parent poster is spewing a line without evidence. Please cite discoveries of respiratory viruses with “weird features” on par with SARS-cov2.

Re: Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

#18

Post by jiocrag »

alevskaya wrote: post #16

Sigh. As I've said in other posts, if any experiment of this sort were the source of sars-cov-2, it would be -blindingly- obvious. The synthetic metagenomic experiments looking into spike, etc. leave completely obvious traces, number one being the use of known, characterized viral vectors. Using some random isolates as experimental vectors is not only methodologically pointless and counterproductive, it's vastly more…

This is like saying Apple couldn’t have possibly developed the iPhone in secrecy. China has massive incentive to both do this research and make said research as opaque as possible to the rest of the world.

Re: Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

#19

Post by benpiper »

hunterb123 wrote: post #14
zozbot234 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there are many strong indications that it did. Nope, there really aren't. We're now finding more and more naturally-evolved viruses in cave-dwelling bats that share plenty of features with SARS-CoV2, including the 'weird' features everyone was talking about at the beginning of the pandemic. All it really takes is to go and look for them. Occam's razor says this virus too is just one of many.

> All it really takes is to go and look for them They did, the closest sample is still Ra4991/RaTG13 which was found in a Wuhan mine and transported to the Wuhan virology lab before the outbreak. Not aware of another confirmed sample found that is closer to SARS-CoV-2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RaTG13

Indeed. They've been looking for the intermediate host for 2 years and have not found anything close to SARS-CoV-2.

Contrast that with the fact that they found the intermediate host for the first SARS within just a few months of that outbreak.

Re: Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate (2015)

#20

Post by tacitusarc »

alevskaya wrote: post #16

Sigh. As I've said in other posts, if any experiment of this sort were the source of sars-cov-2, it would be -blindingly- obvious. The synthetic metagenomic experiments looking into spike, etc. leave completely obvious traces, number one being the use of known, characterized viral vectors. Using some random isolates as experimental vectors is not only methodologically pointless and counterproductive, it's vastly more…

Why is that? How would selecting for evolved inactivity be differentiable?
Post reply on HN