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

51–60 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#51

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway290 wrote: post #20
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…

> 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 We are well past the point where nature is our greatest enemy. A lab leak of such consequences has the attention of every hostile organization out there. Imagine the scale of hurt you could achieve, yourself remaining pretty much immune to detection and prosecution,…

[deleted]

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#52

Post by oxff »

I mean guys, it supposedly started next to a lab that studies the virus and they've yet to find the original bat population spreading it. If I made a Contagion 2 film that asked you to suspend your disbelief wrt. these two facts you wouldn't buy it.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#53

Post by arisAlexis »

barnacled wrote: post #30

The problem with this is it is full of utterly debunked nonsense that Ebright knows full well has been addressed. It's Brandolini's law [0] in action, and no matter how many times virologists rebut these positions the same old tripe gets wheeled out again, and again, and again. If you ignore rebuttals and just repeat yourself + get 20k likes on twitter how many people are going to see a rebuttal like the excellent on…

Actually all of his claims are facts unless proven otherwise. Do you have proof that these facts (Wuhan playing with these viruses, funding etc) are not true or you would like them to not be true?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#54

Post by barnacled »

scotchmi_st wrote: post #45

If you click on the link in the thread, there's an editor's note clarifying that this paper is being used to prop up dodgy claims, for which there's no evidence. The main issue I have with the 'lab leak' theory is that I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. Hitchens' razor applies- what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence. I personally don't see any issue with the idea…

There is now evidence firmly against lab leak and firmly in favour of natural origins, covered in depth by a domain expert here - https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/15519378265808240...

I feel like this isn't publicised enough. The lab leakers are louder and people definitely seem to want it to be true more than natural origins and they are not being honest in their attempts to dismiss these papers.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#55

Post by arisAlexis »

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.

It's extremely important if safety measures were breached and later facts were manipulated. It's crazy to say that in a nuclear war for example who fired the first missile is not important.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#56

Post by Mordisquitos »

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.

That is not a valid reason for a higher Bayesian prior of the lab leak hypothesis. A prior is that, a prior: the fact that many institutions would see their reputation damaged in the event of a known lab leak has no effect on making a lab leak event more likely to happen a priori.

In fact, it would make much more sense to argue the opposite (not that I would necessarily agree with this reasoning either). The fact that so many institutions would see their reputation damaged if a lab leak was known to have happened makes it less likely for the virus having originated from a lab leak a priori, as said institutions would put in place strong measures to avoid it.

On the Bayesian level though, what can make sense would be to argue that the fact that so many institutions would be damaged post hoc if a lab leak were to be known, then the weight of evidence against the event which has been provided by such institutions should be lower.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#57

Post by gausswho »

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.

Conversely, when I read advocacy that speculates motive in this way, I note the absence of deductive reason.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#59

Post by barnacled »

arisAlexis wrote: post #53
barnacled wrote: post #30

The problem with this is it is full of utterly debunked nonsense that Ebright knows full well has been addressed. It's Brandolini's law [0] in action, and no matter how many times virologists rebut these positions the same old tripe gets wheeled out again, and again, and again. If you ignore rebuttals and just repeat yourself + get 20k likes on twitter how many people are going to see a rebuttal like the excellent on…

Actually all of his claims are facts unless proven otherwise. Do you have proof that these facts (Wuhan playing with these viruses, funding etc) are not true or you would like them to not be true?

'Claims are facts until proven otherwise' is quite the take, I think Karl Popper would take issue with that.

I linked a thorough thread from a domain expert explaining in detail why the claims are false. These things have been addressed/debunked many, many times but still get repeated because the untruths get amplified and the rebuttals not.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#60

Post by kick_in_the_dor »

barnacled wrote: post #30

The problem with this is it is full of utterly debunked nonsense that Ebright knows full well has been addressed. It's Brandolini's law [0] in action, and no matter how many times virologists rebut these positions the same old tripe gets wheeled out again, and again, and again. If you ignore rebuttals and just repeat yourself + get 20k likes on twitter how many people are going to see a rebuttal like the excellent on…

Care to give us the spark notes of the paper?
Post reply on HN