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

201–210 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#201

Post by mejutoco »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #184
mejutoco wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 cau…

I think it is difficult to do a RCT of Covid (many different variants, vaccines, variability in symptoms), but it is a very fair point. Thank you.

There are RCT for influenza and other diseases Sars (1):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118

While maybe we do not have the gold standard study, I think it was the right decision, given how little inconvenience masks have, for the much bigger benefit of reducing Covid risks.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#202

Post by breck »

widerporst wrote: post #193
breck wrote: post #162

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?

This ignores the fact that these labs are often built closely to where the viruses in question naturally occur.

Ah that's a good point.

So your CSV file would need 1 more column: `type`, `bioWeaponsLab|naturalVirusHotspot`, and then you could have a toggle to see one at a time (or both, overlaid).

If anyone makes this CSV with data vis and published to GitHub and it's good I'll send you $500USD worth of NEAR coin or my eternal gratitude and respect (whichever you value more).

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#203

Post by wk_end »

ajross wrote: post #147
wk_end wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Likewise the "1000 miles from bat viruses" thing is spun. We don't know that either! We just know what we measured, not what we didn't. That's not "spun", that's science. You're positing a COVID teapot that we have no evidence for. In a scientific context, it's not spin to omit stating "based on all available empirical evidence" after every assertion.

> 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…

If I were saying "bats in southern China with SARS-like viruses are evidence that there are no bats closer to Wuhan with SARS-like coronaviruses", I would be committing the fallacy that you're accusing me of. But that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that there's no evidence of any bats closer to Wuhan with SARS-like coronaviruses. And I'm saying that, while it's indeed possible that these hypothetical bats exist - just as it's "possible" that COVID was transmitted to Wuhan via a teapot halfway between here and Mars; that COVID unicorns exist on an undiscovered island somewhere and one sneezed particularly hard and its germs ended up in Wuhan; or that COVID spontaneously formed one day on the apples in your friend's refrigerator in Wuhan - it's, again, not spin for a scientist to refrain from couching everything in uncertainty because of the infinite evidenceless hypotheticals that might disprove it; this is how every single positive statement in science functions. It is indeed correct, scientifically speaking, that there are no apples at your friend's home where you found no apples [based on all available empirical evidence]. And it is indeed correct, scientifically speaking, that Wuhan is 1,000 miles away from the nearest wild bats with SARS-like coronaviruses [based on all available empirical evidence].

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#204

Post by LatteLazy »

barnacled wrote: post #30

The problem with this is it is full of utterly debunked nonsense that Ebright knows full well has been addressed. It's Brandolini's law [0] in action, and no matter how many times virologists rebut these positions the same old tripe gets wheeled out again, and again, and again. If you ignore rebuttals and just repeat yourself + get 20k likes on twitter how many people are going to see a rebuttal like the excellent on…

Thanks, that's an excellent thread. Sorry you're getting piled on buy idiots...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#205

Post by b4je7d7wb »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #197
glofish wrote: post #114

The main point that no scientists seems to want to mention is the clear cut and well defined conflict of interest in determining the origins. How would the scientists of the future ask for funding if it turns out they themselves directly caused an epidemic? It is a black eye for science, it provides ammunition to the "anti-science" crowd. In contrast scientists are in the drivers position if the cause was all natural…

Scientists are not a monolith. I highly doubt any of them are concerned about the macro level feasibility of science funding. It's fine.

They could be subconciously following the herd

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#206

Post by pstuart »

seydor wrote: post #6

Well I hope that at least the next lab-made pandemic will insert some beneficial mutations to humanity. In a way, the lab-leak hypothesis is comforting, because it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease, despite the facts of modern life, record human population and rates of travel. If it is not lab-made, then nature may do this again soon with another vir…

Easy now -- this is how we get zombies.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#207

Post by stefanpie »

pstuart wrote: post #206
seydor wrote: post #6

Well I hope that at least the next lab-made pandemic will insert some beneficial mutations to humanity. In a way, the lab-leak hypothesis is comforting, because it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease, despite the facts of modern life, record human population and rates of travel. If it is not lab-made, then nature may do this again soon with another vir…

Easy now -- this is how we get zombies.

Antihypoxiant by Andy Weir: http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/antihypoxiant.html

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#208

Post by rajin444 »

seydor wrote: post #6

Well I hope that at least the next lab-made pandemic will insert some beneficial mutations to humanity. In a way, the lab-leak hypothesis is comforting, because it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease, despite the facts of modern life, record human population and rates of travel. If it is not lab-made, then nature may do this again soon with another vir…

Isn’t the lab leak hypothesis saying nature did this make this, but scientists who were studying (and allowing) the natural processes accidentally leaked it?

Which is the main argument against this kind of function research - there’s little gain compared to the risk.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#209

Post by jcims »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #197
glofish wrote: post #114

The main point that no scientists seems to want to mention is the clear cut and well defined conflict of interest in determining the origins. How would the scientists of the future ask for funding if it turns out they themselves directly caused an epidemic? It is a black eye for science, it provides ammunition to the "anti-science" crowd. In contrast scientists are in the drivers position if the cause was all natural…

Scientists are not a monolith. I highly doubt any of them are concerned about the macro level feasibility of science funding. It's fine.

They aren't a monolith but there is a pretty large overlap between the set of scientists that would be negatively impacted by major policy changes in virus research and those who's opinion is considered useful in the discussion of possible origins of SARS-CoV-2.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#210

Post by sneak »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #41
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.

The origin being a lab leak would likely lead to more stringent controls around researchers.

Would it? If such is possible, leak or no, more stringent controls should be implemented regardless.

In any case, you will get no such evidence, so society should proceed as if evidence is in hand, if such is even theoretically possible.

Post reply on HN