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

211–220 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#211

Post by BrainVirus »

Did someone come up with a good explanation of why Peter Daszak and various affiliates of EcoHealth alliance were involved in nearly all the media "coverage" (dismissals) of the lab leak hypothesis when it first popped up?

And why The Lancet published the initial letter dismissing lab leak, clearly coordinated by EcoHealth alliance?

And why Daszak also was on the WHO investigation team?

And why to this day no one apologized, let alone got fired for this?

If you don't admit these (now-obvious) facts, you are not discussing the lab leak hypothesis in good faith.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#212

Post by spywaregorilla »

b4je7d7wb wrote: post #205
spywaregorilla wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A scientist could be following a herd, but that is irrelevant to the point.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#213

Post by Mountain_Skies »

ploika wrote: post #200
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 aren't a monolith though. There few better career boosts than proving everyone else wrong, and the satisfaction of poaching work off a competitor who messed up isn't restricted to any one industry. Research into dangerous viruses isn't going to stop, no matter what happened in Wuhan, and it's far from the only risky work going on in labs around the world anyway. Whatever about the strength of the natural o…

Scientists who aren't part of the monolith find themselves pushed out as wacko conspiracy theorists. This happened over and over and over and over and over and over and over again in the past thirty or so months. Even HN took part in this, supporting the depersoning of anyone who dared question the natural origin narrative. Scientists aren't a monolith as long as you include those who have been threatened with dire consequences for not toeing the line. Even now there are still some who want anyone who suggests the possibility of a lab leak origin to be silenced.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#214

Post by jcims »

throwaway290 wrote: post #20
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…

> 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 We are well past the point where nature is our greatest enemy. A lab leak of such consequences has the attention of every hostile organization out there. Imagine the scale of hurt you could achieve, yourself remaining pretty much immune to detection and prosecution,…

Eh, a rogue planet could convert the earth into a small asteroid belt.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#215

Post by aljungberg »

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…

The fact that we were strongly told no and then yes with equal conviction is sufficient to demonstrate the point, regardless of whether masks work. Whether intentionally or not, media and governments can mislead in an in effect coordinated fashion.

(Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#216

Post by ix101 »

rajin444 wrote: post #208
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.

The question is whether in the process of studying it they intentionally created modified viruses, and that was what leaked.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#217

Post by gilbetron »

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…

Are you willfully trying to propagate this idea? It seems like you must be, because there is a deluge of studies showing the effectiveness of masks - and the nuance and complexity of that statement. Throwing on a thin cloth mask that doesn't seal well doesn't do much of anything. Putting on an N95, well-fitted mask definitely helps tremendously. That you think there are "exactly zero" studies indicates you aren't even looking. Please look and stop trying to sit in your echo chamber.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#218

Post by spywaregorilla »

pelasaco wrote: post #137

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 (…

> we still fight with basic stuff like vaccine, treatment

What exactly are you hoping for?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#219

Post by empathy_m »

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?

Are you looking for a diagram like this one? https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.abm4454/asset/75...

( https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454 )

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#220

Post by notahacker »

jmyeet wrote: post #171
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 problem is there are really only two contenders for Covid origins: lab origin (I much prefer this label than "lab leak") and zoonotic origin. Zoonotic origin is the obvious choice. As a general rule, nature is way better at evolving pathogens than humans are. The problem with this theory is we haven't yet found the wild population from which Covid originated. Now this can take time, sometimes years. But for SARS/…

> But for SARS/MERS this was established relatively quickly

It wasn't for SARS though. It took 14 years to identify the theoretical native reservoir in bats (ironically the result of the bat coronavirus study programmes the lab-leak hypothesis centres on) in a different province from the SARS outbreak. Civets were identified early on as the probable intermediate animal although the links with the Tanuki are arguably stronger, and we don't know how, why or where the interspecies crossover happened. So basically the same origin debate, without any of the political intrigue.

If there was a popular theory that the SARS epidemic had started as a result of a lab had collected bat coronaviruses, manipulated them and leaked them, there would arguably be less evidence against it

Post reply on HN