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

241–250 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#241

Post by lubesGordi »

jiscariot wrote: post #135
Closi wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hitchens' razor applies- what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence. I think the problem is that there is very little evidence exists for the other explanations - and an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The lack of non-circumstantial evidence for the "Lab Leak" theory can be partially explained by the fact that China blocked investigations within the lab until 2021…

US officials also have the strong incentives to muddy the waters for lab-leak. I mean, if true, we likely funded it since Fauci's NIH was giving millions in grant money to Daszak/EcoHealth Alliance, which was studying bat corona viruses and arguing with the government over their gain of function research. Oddly Vanity Fair has done the best deep-dive I've seen on this. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-viru…

Not only that but tensions are already high with China; you really want to collapse that wave function? I'm pretty OK with that not being public knowledge.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#242

Post by nuncanada »

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 does matter a lot. Knowing the origin makes us able to try to prepare for it in the future. Specifically if it was a lab leak, we should put highly stringent procedures for conducting such research. Theses labs should be isolated far away from major urban areas, and have mandatory quarantine while leaving it... For example...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#243

Post by PointlessLogin »

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…

> lab-made pandemic

Lab-leak != Lab-made

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#244

Post by ChrisLomont »

goblin89 wrote: post #128
ChrisLomont wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changing a prior after the fact is the opposite of reasonable. It's called a prior for a reason.

Is it a misapplication of the term “prior likelihood” if it’s used to mean “prior likelihood of a given explanation for a past event turning out to be accurate later ”?

Yes, that is still a misapplication.

A perfect coin has a 50/50 chance for heads. That is a prior. Getting 10 heads in a row does not change that prior. Getting 1 billion heads in a row does not change that prior.

Unlikely outcomes don't change the prior. The prior is the probability distribution of beliefs before evidence is taken into account.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#245

Post by 0x445442 »

zamadatix wrote: post #239
BrainVirus wrote: post #211

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 apo…

I'm not saying I disagree with any of these, to be honest I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but there is some irony in posing an argument for good faith discussion by posting a list of questions you've already determined only have one true answer.

Your speculation of the poster’s positions on said questions is not in good faith either. Even if your assumptions were correct, they’re entirely irrelevant as the questions stand on their own.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#246

Post by yonaguska »

zamadatix wrote: post #239
BrainVirus wrote: post #211

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 apo…

I'm not saying I disagree with any of these, to be honest I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but there is some irony in posing an argument for good faith discussion by posting a list of questions you've already determined only have one true answer.

OP isn't asserting an answer to any of those questions, OP is asking for an answer at all. All of those associations and events are tied into the lab leak hypothesis. So, if you are going to make any hypothesis on the lab leak, those are events that need to be addressed. OP is asking that you look at all the evidence, or you are not arguing in good faith. I don't see how it's ironic.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#247

Post by tzs »

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.

> 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.

It often takes years or even decades to find the original animal source of viruses. Sometimes it is never found, such as with ebola.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#248

Post by pnf »

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…

Science funding is dominated by industry and academic sources. Academic research departments are funded by industry or by NGOs funded by industry and government. As with any culture, successful people generally know where the third rails are, and where to focus their energies if they just want to have a career. Controversial science is relegated to the fringe by the internal logic of the system. It doesn't require a conspiracy, just an Overton window. Within any large organization there may be malfeasance, corruption, etc, that is widely known or suspected. Yet there are few "whistleblowers". Who wants that fight? Who wants their reputation blemished? Very few.

Even so, if the system isn't hiring people who don't need to be told what to investigate and what to leave alone then the system is doing it wrong. Ideological guardrails and discourse policing take care of the bulk of compliance. The few kooks who insist on honest debate, well, people like Fauci and Francis know what do do about them. The sociopaths at the top have no compunction about ruining careers and make sure that is widely understood. Occasionally they'll kill a chicken while the monkeys watch to remind everyone.

If someone doesn't know this about Science and Scientists now, after cigarettes and cancer, the replication crisis, and now 2+ years of pandemic evidence smacking us in the face, then they don't want to know.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#249

Post by Retric »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #213
ploika wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

HN isn’t part of the scientific community. You can find peer reviewed research published on the lab leak idea shows it was considered orthodox enough to be worth looking at. As recently as June of this year, WHO still wants to look more deeply at it.

That said, it’s considered fringe because there isn’t enough evidence supporting the idea and the meat market theory showed up first.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#250

Post by fooqux »

JaceLightning wrote: post #238
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…

or... if it's a lab-leak then evil governments know they can create world-wide devastating pandemics.

I'm pretty sure evil governments already know this. If nothing else, it's been the plot of many popular stories for decades.
Post reply on HN