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

181–190 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#181

Post by mejutoco »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #119
chmod600 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I'll also point out that some people don't like to believe that there can be global media conspiracies, even though there are (cf. "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" propaganda at the beginning). That's not a conspiracy, that's just common shared knowledge.

> "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional"

Putting aside the phrasing, which I take to be something like "unless you follow procedures and have new masks often etc".

In the beginning this was the narrative because there was a shortage of masks, or because of plain ignorance.

Masks are not perfect, but they were effective, which is why they are still mandatory in some contexts.

If one can ignore the bizarre political associations that formed in the US regarding masks, it is difficult to argue that the effort of wearing a mask is not worth it. Even if, as I said before, they are far from perfect.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#182

Post by chaosite »

heartbreak wrote: post #180
hackerlight wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a conspiracy. Conspiracy implies planning and plotting. That was just decentralized media figures deciding to copy each other's opinions, because there's safety in numbers and group think, and because dissent sticks out and gets attacked.

You just described the early-Covid shutdown policy-making too.

Shutdowns weren't done by media figures, they were done by policy-makers inside governments.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#183

Post by layer8 »

Closi wrote: post #170
mellavora wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

Right, but I believe that this bias created by knowing the actual outcome for a single instance is much too strong, and we should rather strive to reduce that bias. In that light, the effort expended in continued speculation about the actual truth seems mostly wasted and misdirected energy to me.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#184

Post by PathOfEclipse »

mejutoco wrote: post #181
PurpleRamen wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll also point out that some people don't like to believe that there can be global media conspiracies, even though there are (cf. "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" propaganda at the beginning). That's not a conspiracy, that's just common shared knowledge.

> "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" Putting aside the phrasing, which I take to be something like "unless you follow procedures and have new masks often etc". In the beginning this was the narrative because there was a shortage of masks, or because of plain ignorance. Masks are not perfect, but they were effective, which is why they are still mandatory in some contexts. If one can ignore…

To my knowledge, to this day, there are still exactly zero RCTs showing that masks were ever effective against COVID, and at least two major RCTs whose results indicate they are not very effective (there was no statistically significant benefit to masking). If, after two years of a world-wide pandemic, the best evidence we can put forth are low-quality observational studies which explicitly state they cannot show causation, then maybe it's time to stop blindly repeating the mantra that masks are effective.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#185

Post by ethanbond »

junofan wrote: post #138
ethanbond wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes, if we are to ignore all the people who refer to their bioweapon theory as “lab leak hypothesis.”

Or maybe to put it another way: it’s evident that at least when people think they’re responding to the lab leak hypothesis, they’re responding to a deliberate release scenario. IMO people have deliberately muddied the conversation because if you muddy it one direction you get to imply malice on China’s part, and if you muddy it in the other direction you get to clear China of incompetence.

But in any case, not only are we not going to prove or fix malice or incompetence, it doesn’t actually require either to yield COVID-19 or COVID-19-like pandemics anyway. That’s where the conversation should be.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#186

Post by [deleted] »

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

#187

Post by heartbreak »

chaosite wrote: post #182
heartbreak wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just described the early-Covid shutdown policy-making too.

Shutdowns weren't done by media figures, they were done by policy-makers inside governments.

> That was just decentralized [governments] deciding to copy each other's opinions, because there's safety in numbers and group think, and because dissent sticks out and gets attacked.

Sorry, I thought that substitution was implied.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#188

Post by [deleted] »

cycomanic wrote: post #156
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…

But in science at least you always should test against the null hypothesis, and that is purposefully not done here like in many other "conspiracy theories". Note I'm not saying that the lab leak is necessarily a conspiracy theory or that it can not be true, I'm simply talking about the way of arguing. The way a lot of conspiracy arguments are being constructed is that they take a number of events which seem relativel…

[deleted]

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#189

Post by contravariant »

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.

While true, the same can be said for any gun that doesn't go off somewhere in the near future. Which isn't a terribly realistic expectation for most guns in the real world, thankfully.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#190

Post by chaosbolt »

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.

Yeah sure I need to bring you mathematical irrefutable proof that some event happened, but you can just call me a conspiracy theorist or whatever new words go with it today: racist, sexist, religious, bigot, homophobe, transphobe, etc. with 0 evidence.
Post reply on HN