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

161–170 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#161

Post by ajross »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #153
ajross wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a scientific context, it's not spin to omit stating "based on all available empirical evidence" after every assertion. No, that's a fallacy. If I find an apple on the ground at the supermarket, it is evidence that there are apples at the supermarket. It is not evidence that there are no apples at my friend's home where I found no apples. I just didn't check the refrigerator. The linked thread says, precisely, "W…

Sorry, where are the unsampled bats within 1000km of Wuhan? This stuff has been sampled extensively. Or are you merely stating it's possible there's a bat cave no one's heard of that hasn't been sampled?

> This stuff has been sampled extensively.

I don't think that's correct, for the simple reason that if those papers existed the (sigh) pro-leak folks would be linking them everywhere. Virology isn't exactly a trillion dollar field, we're not going out and sequencing every virus in every species. The Yunnan cave made news and was well-studied because someone stumbled on a SARS-related virus there, that says nothing about where that virus went later.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#162

Post by breck »

This is a very simple question. You just need 1 CSV file. A CSV file with a list of all BioWeaponsLabs and their coordinates. Then for every point on earth compute distance from nearest BioWeaponsLabs. This will give you a heatmap for pr(labLeak|pandemic). Few hrs work.

Right? Has anyone done this yet?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#163

Post by mellavora »

abigail95 wrote: post #78
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 say there's no evidence for something, what does that mean? Are we talking about something without positive verification, or that there is evidence the opposite is true. If you are witness to a cover-up, that's not a signal that "no evidence" is a good position to take. There is evidence they lied about what they were doing. What does that say about the probability of the existence of positive evidence? They a…

> If you say there's no evidence for something, what does that mean?

Back in the 70's, when the Pentagon was concerned that the Soviets were up to something, they would sometimes say in response to a world event that "And we have no evidence that the Soviets are behind this"-- as tongue in cheek "proof" of how clever the Soviets were about hiding their tracks.

to expand-- this was a standing joke which was useful for reducing workplace stress, not often a serious claim

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#164

Post by Method-X »

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.

Ah yes, the weaponization of stigma. Want to shut down critical thinking? Use words like kook, nut, conspiracy theorist, racist, etc. You're basically gaslighting people.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#165

Post by arisAlexis »

sneak wrote: post #63
arisAlexis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In a scenario of MAD, it actually would not be important, as all human civilization would be destroyed and it would thus be completely irrelevant. This is precisely what I am talking about.

we did not have a total destruction and this is an amazing way to figure out how to prevent one. Isn't it very obvious that you need to study what went wrong in civilization changing events to prevent the next one? Like isn't it science 101?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#166

Post by null_object »

hef19898 wrote: post #133
null_object wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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

Daszak made strenuous efforts to hide:

• that he was the organizer and writer of the letter

• that he had direct and invidious connections to the Wuhan Institute

• that the signatories to the letter had any connection to EcoHealth Alliance or the Wuhan Institute

All of the above were later confirmed by emails obtained via public record requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#167

Post by arisAlexis »

barnacled wrote: post #59
arisAlexis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is sophistry. The OP is stating facts. You are being "vague" by saying that these have been "debunked" relying on the long term "no conspiracy" theory which does really not apply in this case. This is a very clear Bayesian probability problem.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#168

Post by desindol »

tomp wrote: post #116
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 fact that there is no evidence, is evidence. (China suppressing all information about what was going on in the lab.)

It’s more akin to you being paranoid than anything else. It’s like myths, dragons and sea monsters came about. No, it was our flagship it’s unsinkable it must be the kraken!

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#169

Post by anonu »

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…

> conspiracy narrative

implies people conspired to create a pandemic. Which detracts from the first point of it being a lab-leak.

> what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence

So we should never develop a hypothesis? Given the lack of any indicators lending support to any of the plausible hypotheses put forward, I think its fair game to discuss the lab leak version.

If you recall in the early days of the pandemic, the lab-leak theory become a politically divisive one in the US, pitting right against left for no good reason other than the fact that the "other side" held an undesirable view. It was labeled as a conspiracy theory, incorrectly. It is very simply, a theory, and it should be discussed on par with any other theory.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#170

Post by Closi »

mellavora wrote: post #158
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does. Knowing what caused this should be important, so it doesn't happen again. If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do. If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken, or such things should not be done in labs with iffy security practices... or maybe even not done at all. Many workplace (and general) safety rules were written because someone has died doing something (…

> If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do. Some people say the main progress of civilization is the ability to do things about forces which were previously seen as natural and random. > If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken, Do you mean like making sure the labs follow certain biohazard handling standards and procedures? Which they currently have to do to maintai…

Nontheless, noting and acknowledging that a worldwide pandemic was actually caused from a lab leak would certinaly drive stricter regulation and higher adherence to procedures.

Conversely, a strong belief that it wasn't a lab leak would, of course, reduce the pressure to implement changes to safety protocols.

In theory everyone would react in a way which optimally reduces risk, but in practice acknowledgement of an incident drives significantly different behaviour.

Post reply on HN