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

81–90 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#81

Post by roenxi »

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…

> On the other hand, many people would like it to be true, because it feeds into a conspiracy narrative.

I think this is missing Occam's razor - many people believe it because they've seen more evidence that it is true than the reverse, but they aren't necessarily good at judging evidence.

It doesn't make much difference either way. Given the number of people in the world, it seems likely we're going to see similar waves of disease in the future. The Asia-Pacific region has been on high alert for exactly this happening for 20 years, this could easily be a 1 in 40 years pandemic or worse as the world keeps getting smaller. And if it is even half plausibly a lab leak then given where tech is up to it takes one lab anywhere with bad safety standards - this is almost a level of risk that is hitherto outside the human experience.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#82

Post by mensetmanusman »

samwillis wrote: post #47

Other than the second tweet in the thread (which source is questionable, see edit below), no sources are provided. Does anyone have a list of sources for the claims in the remaining eight tweets? It's a compelling list of "facts" but without sources and an understanding of the science it's difficult to ascertain whether this is a genuinely strong argument by a "blue check mark" academic. Edit: This is the Nature edit…

‘Lab-origin’ and ‘engineered’ are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#83

Post by Loveaway »

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…

> People can't believe things like global, deadly viral pandemics can occur naturally

Isn't that what most people believe? To me it seems people can't just believe all of this was not a coincidence at all, artificial hyped through oligopoly media, not even as deadly as advertised, and just another bamboozle to keep everyone in their hamster wheels.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#84

Post by Simon_O_Rourke »

mortehu wrote: post #76
chaosbolt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hitchens' razor applies- what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence Say mr X was seen at the crime scene at 10 am, he also knew the victim and lots of people have seen them fight a week ago, the victim had just came out of the bank with 20k$ in cash in a bag, mr X who's broke have been seen driving a car a month after the crime worth 18k$. There is no evidence mr X killed the vic…

I think you are using a definition of evidence normally associated with criminal trials here, and not scientific evidence.

Touché - and that m'lud is why even the best barristers seldom get awarded the Nobel prize in any of the sciences.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#86

Post by hcrean »

mortehu wrote: post #76
chaosbolt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hitchens' razor applies- what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence Say mr X was seen at the crime scene at 10 am, he also knew the victim and lots of people have seen them fight a week ago, the victim had just came out of the bank with 20k$ in cash in a bag, mr X who's broke have been seen driving a car a month after the crime worth 18k$. There is no evidence mr X killed the vic…

I think you are using a definition of evidence normally associated with criminal trials here, and not scientific evidence.

Are you saying that our justice system is un-scientific? lol

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#87

Post by exitb »

What is the motivation behind research that makes viruses more suitable for humans anyway? I assume it's not strictly a military project, since there was international cooperation between countries that aren't allies. What is it we're tying to achieve?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#88

Post by ripper1138 »

barnacled wrote: post #54
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.

They aren’t mutually exclusive though right? We can say the initial outbreak was from the wet market. Does that mean the virus itself is of 100% natural origin?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#89

Post by masklinn »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #82
samwillis wrote: post #47

Other than the second tweet in the thread (which source is questionable, see edit below), no sources are provided. Does anyone have a list of sources for the claims in the remaining eight tweets? It's a compelling list of "facts" but without sources and an understanding of the science it's difficult to ascertain whether this is a genuinely strong argument by a "blue check mark" academic. Edit: This is the Nature edit…

‘Lab-origin’ and ‘engineered’ are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Did you mean “inclusive”? I’d assume the average covid truther would think of lab-origin and engineered as causal if not identical.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#90

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

The early cases were very heavily concentrated around the Huanan wet market, but not around the lab, which is on the other side of the Wuhan, a pretty massive city.[0]

If the virus had come from the lab, you'd expect the early cases to cluster around the lab. Instead, they were centered around a wet market, just like the early cases of the original SARS were back in 2002.

This is completely aside from the other reasons that make a lab leak extremely unlikely. It's public knowledge which viruses the lab in Wuhan works with. The lab regularly publishes its work, lab members go to conferences to present their work, there are international researchers at the institute in Wuhan. There would have been no reason at all for them to hide SARS-CoV-2 prior to the pandemic, and there is simply no shred of evidence that they had SARS-CoV-2.

Finally, I would just encourage anyone who's wondering how much stock to put in Ebright's claims to scroll through his Twitter account. The online persona he cultivates is, to put it very politely, that of a troll.

0. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8715

Post reply on HN