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

221–230 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#221

Post by jcims »

exitb wrote: post #87

What is the motivation behind research that makes viruses more suitable for humans anyway? I assume it's not strictly a military project, since there was international cooperation between countries that aren't allies. What is it we're tying to achieve?

Probably has no relevance for the research in question but viruses are a very effective way to deliver CRISPR-based therapies.

It's conceivable to implant the mRNA of a vaccine similar to what was used for COVID-19 into a transmissible virus and inoculate (or kill) large segments of the population.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#222

Post by tmaly »

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…

I think we are going to find out soon:

https://news.yahoo.com/china-locks-down-65-million-095328796...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#223

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

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…

You do you, but I've enjoyed not even getting the slightest cold for the last couple years that I might just keep masking in a lot of public spaces for the foreseeable future. It's anecdata for sure, but my experience seems to suggest that masks can help protect against airborne transmissible viral infections.

For more anecdata, pretty much everyone in my extended contacts that has chosen to relax their masking posture has gotten covid at some point since. Those that continue stricter protocols get sick less, bet it colds covid or flu.

I haven't heard about any surgeons giving up wearing masks in the operating room. Wonder why...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#224

Post by notahacker »

jcims wrote: post #209
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 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.

There is also a pretty large overlap between the set of scientists who would be positively impacted by major policy changes in virus research. "We need more money to research coronaviruses because we can't trust our counterparts in China" and "Funding should be restricted to labs in $homecountry with better biosecurity controls" are fairly natural conclusions to draw from discovering it was Chinese error, and "this is an arms race we have to fund to win" from discovering it was Chinese malfeasance.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#225

Post by skipkey »

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/…

For me, the primary evidence of lab origin has always been statistical in nature. I have read that there are thousands of wet markets across Asia. So when Covid shows up at one near an institute studying similar viruses instead of one of the thousands of other wet markets, Occam’s razor says it came from there. When we can’t find source animals nearby zoonotic origin requires a much more complex chain of events.

My assumption from close to the beginning has been that most likely, some low-level employee at the institute considered it a job perk to take animals he was supposed to have euthanized and cremated and sell them to a vendor at a market he had connections to for a few yuan.

Does this prove lab origin? No. But barring compelling evidence otherwise it makes lab origin the most likely cause.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#227

Post by mannykannot »

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.

I suspect you are mostly right in that many are more concerned about funding - and publication - at the micro (personal) level, and this might discourage many from going against the establishment armed only with speculation.

As for the scientific establishment (eg the NIH in the USA), it is very politically aware and was apparently determined to speak with a single voice. Somewhat ironically, this may have made it impossible for them to put an end to lab-origin hypotheses, even if they are false.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#228

Post by foreigner »

What I don't understand about this argument is why does it matter? Even if COVID was created in a lab in Wuhan they obviously didn't release it on purpose as a weapon (if they had they wouldn't have released it in Wuhan). There are any number of other labs around the world working on similarly dangerous research that could get released on accident.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#229

Post by potatototoo99 »

foreigner wrote: post #228

What I don't understand about this argument is why does it matter? Even if COVID was created in a lab in Wuhan they obviously didn't release it on purpose as a weapon (if they had they wouldn't have released it in Wuhan). There are any number of other labs around the world working on similarly dangerous research that could get released on accident.

The point is maybe we shouldn't be doing similarly dangerous research in the first place. The point is maybe banning in the US and funding it overseas is just idiotic.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#230

Post by AbrahamParangi »

foreigner wrote: post #228

What I don't understand about this argument is why does it matter? Even if COVID was created in a lab in Wuhan they obviously didn't release it on purpose as a weapon (if they had they wouldn't have released it in Wuhan). There are any number of other labs around the world working on similarly dangerous research that could get released on accident.

It matters if the truth matters to you and it matters because of the highly public discrediting of the lab-leak hypothesis both early in the pandemic and more recently should update your beliefs about a great many institutions.
Post reply on HN