Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis • Hacker News Board

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#131

Post by layer8 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:57 AM UTC

chmod600 wrote: post #102

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 also no evidence that it came from animals directly. Given that there are really only two plausible hypotheses, and nondirect evidence of either, we have to speculate based on circumstantial evidence. And if one hypothesis is floated around the media, we need to raise the other one as well. I'll also point out that some people don't like to believe that there can be global media conspiracies, even though the…

Why do we have to speculate? If both hypotheses are plausible, should it make a significant difference for the measures we take which one is actually true? If evidence comes out showing which hypothesis is true, does it suddenly make the other one retroactively less plausible? I mean, it would be interesting to know what really happened, but it doesn’t change all that much.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#132

Post by zibby8 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:57 AM UTC

For those looking for more information / sources for these tweets, this Vanity Fair article provides a lot of background information on the circumstantial evidence implicating the WIV and EcoHealth Alliance as the source of the lab leak: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-no...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#133

Post by hef19898 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:57 AM UTC

null_object wrote: post #122

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…

Co-signing a letter is hardly covertly doing something, isn't it?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#134

Post by junofan » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:59 AM UTC

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…

The lab is not 10 km away. It is next door to the market. From the WHO report [0]:

> The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market.

[0]: page 119, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-j...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#135

Post by jiscariot » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 12:00 PM UTC

Closi wrote: post #74

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…

> Hitchens' razor applies- what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence. I think the problem is that there is very little evidence exists for the other explanations - and an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The lack of non-circumstantial evidence for the "Lab Leak" theory can be partially explained by the fact that China blocked investigations within the lab until 2021…

US officials also have the strong incentives to muddy the waters for lab-leak. I mean, if true, we likely funded it since Fauci's NIH was giving millions in grant money to Daszak/EcoHealth Alliance, which was studying bat corona viruses and arguing with the government over their gain of function research.

Oddly Vanity Fair has done the best deep-dive I've seen on this. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-no...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#136

Post by zibby8 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 12:00 PM UTC

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.

Concepts like “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” are more about protecting people’s individual liberties than establishing a baseline about whether or not to believe something.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#137

Post by pelasaco » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 12:01 PM UTC

The only thing that it proves is that regardless of how the outbreak happened, if it was a killer virus we would be f*ck. 2 years later, we know few about its origin and we still fight with basic stuff like vaccine, treatment and lockdown.. One could say "well, we learned a lot during this two years", but I doubt that if same happens again, we are able to respond it as we should. Damn, even the question about masks (yes/no/depends) still not sorted out. It is a shame.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#138

Post by junofan » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 12:03 PM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #46

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.

Yeah the lab leak hypothesis is fascinating because it actually refers to two things that sound similar but would imply almost entirely different reactions. Deliberate LLH: China (or, if you’re in China, the US) developed a weapon and essentially released it on the world. This hypothesis basically tells us nothing because we’ll never actually validate or invalidate it. There’s also no mitigation for future leaks beca…

The lab leak hypothesis refers to one thing. It is on page 118 of this WHO report: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-j...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#139

Post by pizza234 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 12:03 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #113

lock-the-spock wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing or conflating the lab-leak and lab-made theories.

Then you'll need to educate me on the what you think distinction is. The linked tweet thread asserts both: that the virus was manufactured in the WIV and that it leaked by accident. There are stronger (and even less well grounded) ideas in the broader conspiracist community asserting that it was the result of bioweapons research, and sometimes even that it was deliberately released. Ebright himself doesn't truck with…

Distinction:

- lab leak: researchers catch infected bat; at the laboratory, bat bites researcher; researcher gets COVID

- lab made: researchers modify a virus, and produce SARS-CoV-2; the latter escapes the laborary (in one way or another)

The importance of the lab leak hypothesis is that it doesn't need any conspiracy (a researcher being bitten is nothing strange in itself), but still implies unsafe practices and bad faith by the institutions involved.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#140

Post by CrazyStat » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 12:05 PM UTC

quadcore wrote: post #125

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

Please provide an example of such a case.