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

Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#31

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

goblin89 wrote: post #14

It appears reasonable to assign COVID lab leak hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many institutions/individuals whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (NIH, DARPA, the US, WIV, CCP), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely.

Along the same line of thinking, the fact that although the lab leak hypothesis is very reasonable, it was branded as a conspiracy theory and a big effort was made to suppress it, makes it seem more likely.

Also the principle of adverse interference. China destroyed/made unavailable a lot of documents. It is reasonable to infer that the destroyed documents had evidence of a lab leak.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#32

Post by mandmandam »

LatteLazy wrote: post #24

It's really worry watching people start with conclusions and work backwards, doubly so here on HN. There is zero evidence for a lab leak, there is plenty of evidence against it (the randomness of the genetic changes between naturally occurring Covid 19 predecessors being the big piece). Yet people are (with flowery language) pretending that lack of evidence makes the "hypothesis" more likely.

You'll find some evidence pointing at a high possibility for a lab leak at this link: https://twitter.com/R_H_Ebright/status/1566826229931524096 ;)

Side note: Not looking at evidence doesn't make it not exist, nor does declaring that there is "zero evidence".

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#33

Post by dxuh »

Garlef wrote: post #25
goblin89 wrote: post #14

It appears reasonable to assign COVID lab leak hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many institutions/individuals whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (NIH, DARPA, the US, WIV, CCP), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely.

This seems to be a fallacy as it can be applied to anything. Here's an example illustrating how bad of an argument that is: It appears to be reasonable to assign the "your mother is a [insert derogatory term]" hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many familiy members whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (your dad, your uncle, your sister, your grandparents…

I fully agree with your point, but I think the example is a bit aggressive towards OP. I'm sure you got a good chuckle of out of this, but I think it would have been better to give an example that did not seem like an attack. For example the earth being flat, the moon landing being fake or something like that.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#35

Post by jtc331 »

goblin89 wrote: post #14

It appears reasonable to assign COVID lab leak hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many institutions/individuals whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (NIH, DARPA, the US, WIV, CCP), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely.

I think the better argument isn’t so much about status: it should have a higher prior because the institutions denying it as a possibility were the very ones funding the category of research that could plausibly result in such an incident.

This is the same kind of issue as why it’s important to separate the regulator from the regulated.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#36

Post by tibbydudeza »

dijit wrote: post #22
seydor wrote: post #6

Well I hope that at least the next lab-made pandemic will insert some beneficial mutations to humanity. In a way, the lab-leak hypothesis is comforting, because it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease, despite the facts of modern life, record human population and rates of travel. If it is not lab-made, then nature may do this again soon with another vir…

> Well I hope that at least the next [..] pandemic will insert some beneficial mutations to humanity. Sometimes this is indirect; there is some debate on why some Europeans have immunity to HIV, the current hypothesis is that it’s a result of us surviving the Black Plague. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325234239.h...

Also why Africans did not suffer such large number of fatalities per population. A younger population but we are one of the few regions in the world still giving the TB/Polio vaccine at birth.

"epigenetic modifications, activate cells of the innate immune system, such as monocytes, macrophages and natural killer cells"

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34983348/

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#38

Post by jtc331 »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #16

I don’t go looking for covid discussions but they arrive in my feeds so i’m conscious i’m seeing a feed that someone(s) else curated for me and wanted me to view. That said… Is there any popular discussion or action regarding mitigation of both lab and natural origins for future? It seems that both avenues are possible. If we know both are possible, that seems like enough knowledge to move forward with exploring poss…

There’s a natural fork in the road here which is why this is so contentious. The best argument gain of function proponents have for their research (besides weaponization of course) is to create the next big thing in a lab first so that we can figure out how to neutralize it. The argument the anti-GoF advocates have is that creating the next big thing in a lab leads eventually/inevitably to at least one of them getting out.

The responses are effectively inherently opposite hence strong disagreement.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#39

Post by goblin89 »

Garlef wrote: post #25
goblin89 wrote: post #14

It appears reasonable to assign COVID lab leak hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many institutions/individuals whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (NIH, DARPA, the US, WIV, CCP), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely.

This seems to be a fallacy as it can be applied to anything. Here's an example illustrating how bad of an argument that is: It appears to be reasonable to assign the "your mother is a [insert derogatory term]" hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many familiy members whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (your dad, your uncle, your sister, your grandparents…

Your analogy is harmful to the topic under discussion: its key assumptions (such as comparing the governments of US and China to my family in terms of power and influence) render it inapplicable.

> It appears to be reasonable to assign the "your mother is a [insert derogatory term]" hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many familiy members whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (your dad, your uncle, your sister, your grandparents), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely.

If something major happened that made it a difficult binary choice between either that and , then certainly it would be reasonable to assign appropriate priors if you were forming your opinion exclusively by interviewing my relatives. (On the other hand, if my family members or relatives were in positions of significant power/esteem/status that they stood to lose if what you say were true, had significant social influence and a degree of control over mass media, then reweighing priors in such fashion would be advisable regardless of your source.)

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#40

Post by treeman79 »

sneak wrote: post #28

The origin does not matter. Nothing changes now, regardless of how it started. The pathological human obsession with narratives such as this often does more harm than good. No useful investigation can now occur. No punishment can be meted out. Any lessons learned from one origin or another can be learned now regardless.

If people are creating super viruses. It kind of matters a lot.
Post reply on HN