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

121–130 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#121

Post by 6510 »

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…

> The main issue I have with the 'lab leak' theory is that I haven't seen much evidence one way or another.

MY main issue is that we even have to consider it. We have plenty of horrific diseases studied in labs that could (and do) escape at times but are very much worth studying. Designing new ones should not be a thing.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#122

Post by null_object »

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…

> 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.

Note that the addendum to the paper was added in March 2020, when Peter Daszak and many others directly associated with the Wuhan Institute were working covertly[0] to destroy any rational or scientific debate about the origins of covid. The Lancet letter was published on 7 March 2020.

[0] Daszak and many of the other co-signers to the Lancet letter which "strongly condemned conspiracy theories” declared no conflicts of interest.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#123

Post by ajsnigrutin »

scotchmi_st wrote: post #95
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 don't know how the law works where you live, but in my country, 'probably did it' isn't enough for a conviction. Even then, this isn't some spurious made up court trial, and the probabilities you're working with are easily inflated to suit the narrative you want. Conspiracy theorists will always say they have enough evidence for their theory, of course.

There's a difference between "not enough for conviction" (meaning, more investigation needed) and the whole system (from authorities, mainsteam media to social network bans) turning against anyone who even dares mention the lab leak hypothesis.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#124

Post by undecisive »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #75
oxff wrote: post #52

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.

It started at a wet market on the other side of the city. That's been very solidly established now. The early cases were very heavily concentrated around the wet market, but not around the lab, which is more than 10 km away.[0] > a lab that studies the virus The lab did not study SARS-CoV-2. It studied viruses that are about 20% different from SARS-CoV-2. We know what viruses they were working with, because they publ…

I'd recommend being a little more strict with your language if you want to convince anyone here.

"It started"..."solidly established" - that's enough inaccuracy for most HN people to ignore the whole of your post.

Compare that with the context and abstract of the paper you've cited: "the earliest human cases", "circumstantial evidence", "earliest known COVID-19 cases", "spatially associated with vendors", "insufficient evidence to define upstream events"

At this point, it is all opinion vs opinion based on circumstantial evidence or the lack thereof - and claiming anything else is either a) Faith or b) Misrepresentation.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#125

Post by quadcore »

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…

deleted

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#126

Post by kgarten »

junofan wrote: post #104
kgarten wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why is this downvoted? this is an excellent thread with links to a paper that seems to show strong evidence against the lab leak ...

> there is insufficient evidence to define upstream events, and exact circumstances remain obscure From the paper.

I was talking about the second paper she mentions in the twitter thread:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8337

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#127

Post by RyEgswuCsn »

bamboozled wrote: post #112
parkingrift wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn’t enough evidence to convict, so to speak, but the one place that could easily disprove the lab leak claim is the same place desperately stonewalling and destroying evidence. Acting guilty doesn’t mean your guilty, but something nefarious went on in that lab. To the point where they would rather fire bomb the entire lab than answer questions or provide documents. >On the other hand, many people would like i…

I can't agree with this anymore. For some reason, this lab isn't allowed to be inspected and investigated thoroughly. So there is something wrong, likely, it's where COVID19 came from or else, why not just allow an investigation team in to remove all doubts.

Why would they? Would you allow your neighbours to search your home and inspect your computer as soon as they claim that you are a pedophile?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#128

Post by goblin89 »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #111
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.

Changing a prior after the fact is the opposite of reasonable. It's called a prior for a reason.

Is it a misapplication of the term “prior likelihood” if it’s used to mean “prior likelihood of a given explanation for a past event turning out to be accurate later”?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#129

Post by michelledepeil »

A lot of the tweet mirrors what is described in more detail, and better sources, by Alina Chan in Viral, Search for the Origin of Covid-19. In my opinion a book worth reading, as it doesn't try too hard to point a finger but raises enough circumstantial arguments to support _anything other than a natural origin_ for Covid-19. Either way, CCP has caused enough damage (in my opinion, again) to never be trustworthy again.

Somewhere else in this thread, her medium is linked, and indeed she also writes clear and rational reviews of more recent literature.

https://ayjchan.medium.com/

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#130

Post by swalsh »

bamboozled wrote: post #112
parkingrift wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn’t enough evidence to convict, so to speak, but the one place that could easily disprove the lab leak claim is the same place desperately stonewalling and destroying evidence. Acting guilty doesn’t mean your guilty, but something nefarious went on in that lab. To the point where they would rather fire bomb the entire lab than answer questions or provide documents. >On the other hand, many people would like i…

I can't agree with this anymore. For some reason, this lab isn't allowed to be inspected and investigated thoroughly. So there is something wrong, likely, it's where COVID19 came from or else, why not just allow an investigation team in to remove all doubts.

Not allowing investigation is not necessary conspiracy to cover up known evidence. It might just be an admission that there is a nonzero chance there is evidence there... and if the world finds that, there could be dire consequences if people decide China should be held liable.
Post reply on HN