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

261–270 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#261

Post by vidro3 »

junofan wrote: post #134
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It started at a wet market on the other side of the city. That's been very solidly established now. The early cases were very heavily concentrated around the wet market, but not around the lab, which is more than 10 km away.[0] > a lab that studies the virus The lab did not study SARS-CoV-2. It studied viruses that are about 20% different from SARS-CoV-2. We know what viruses they were working with, because they publ…

The lab is not 10 km away. It is next door to the market. From the WHO report [0]: > The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. [0]: page 119, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-j...

i thought cases were already cropping up prior to that move

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#262

Post by tehjoker »

nradov wrote: post #196
samwillis wrote: post #47

Other than the second tweet in the thread (which source is questionable, see edit below), no sources are provided. Does anyone have a list of sources for the claims in the remaining eight tweets? It's a compelling list of "facts" but without sources and an understanding of the science it's difficult to ascertain whether this is a genuinely strong argument by a "blue check mark" academic. Edit: This is the Nature edit…

I recommend reading the Office of the Director of National Intelligence unclassified summary of the assessment on COVID-19 origins. It's over a year old but the analysis hasn't changed much and they do explain how they reached their conclusions. Some sort of lab origin is possible but unproven (and I doubt we'll ever know for sure). https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...

If you ever take something intelligence says seriously that isn't independently verifiable, you're getting your crank yanked. They are professional liars and manipulators.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#263

Post by gfodor »

vidro3 wrote: post #254
0x445442 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

these questions are basically copy pasta amongst the lab-leak crowd. that doesn't mean they aren't valid but I think it make sense to question the motivation in this instance.

What’s the best way to raise these facts - are you supposed to just list them out since writing them in the form of a question is misleading or something?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#264

Post by smrtinsert »

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…

Even if the lab leak theory was true and some irresponsible handlers were responsible for it, so what? Science moves and lives on. If we had to throw out every concept that committed some catastrophic failure we'd have nothing - no governments, no religions, etc.

This is only an attack on science if you are already anti-science.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#265

Post by tehjoker »

I'm on a mobile device and feel terrible right now do I'm not going to find the sources, but aren't there several papers out there right now from Brazil, Italy, and perhaps Spain showing detection of SARS2 in samples from Nov. 2019? That would wildly change our interpretation of at least COVID's geographic origin.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#266

Post by thedorkknight »

yonaguska wrote: post #246
zamadatix wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is that they're not evidence for a lab leak. They're evidence for Peter Daszak being a shady person who was scared of the thought of a lab leak being linked to him regardless of whether or not it's true, and handled it in the worst way possible.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#267

Post by mring33621 »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #56
goblin89 wrote: post #14

It appears reasonable to assign COVID lab leak hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many institutions/individuals whose image/status would it directly or indirectly damage if found true (NIH, DARPA, the US, WIV, CCP), and which therefore would be compelled to paint it as unlikely.

That is not a valid reason for a higher Bayesian prior of the lab leak hypothesis. A prior is that, a prior: the fact that many institutions would see their reputation damaged in the event of a known lab leak has no effect on making a lab leak event more likely to happen a priori . In fact, it would make much more sense to argue the opposite (not that I would necessarily agree with this reasoning either). The fact th…

"as said institutions would put in place strong measures to avoid it"

I was going to joke, but this is NOT TRUE AT ALL

Based on my life experience, a more correct idea is, "as said institutions would put in place strong measures to avoid appearing to have caused it"

This tilts the argument back the other way.

Look, I don't know about lab vs natural origins of COVID-19, but I do know that big, human orgs tend to have more CYA theater than actual preventative measures in place.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#268

Post by peteradio »

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.

That's not fair, these questions have existed in the public sphere for years now with no official explanation. This is one more "talk to the hand" played by the authorities. I suppose when authorities behave this way, they shouldn't expect themselves to have grassroots support.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#269

Post by vibrio »

M0r13n wrote: post #148

I ask myself whether the Chinese government knows more about the risks of a COVID infection and is therefore trying everything it can to stop it from spreading. Maybe the virus actually leaked and the chemists know something about the long term effects that they do not publicly disclose.

Chemists rarely work directly with viruses.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#270

Post by barnacled »

null_object wrote: post #73
barnacled wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is now evidence firmly against lab leak and firmly in favour of natural origins, covered in depth by a domain expert here - https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/15519378265808240... I feel like this isn't publicised enough. The lab leakers are louder and people definitely seem to want it to be true more than natural origins and they are not being honest in their attempts to dismiss these papers.

> There is now evidence firmly against lab leak and firmly in favour of natural origins, covered in depth by a domain expert here... A counter: https://ayjchan.medium.com/evidence-for-a-natural-origin-of-... As for Angie Rasmussen - she is hardly the dispassionate scientist that you seem to want to portray her as, in your post[0] [0] https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/a-toxic-milie...

The 'counter' is incredibly weak sauce and she's been rebutted several times. Again, as I said, if you just ignore rebuttals you can keep acting like you have a point.

The second post is a scurrilous and nasty smear job from a thoroughly unpleasant individual and I'm quite appalled you posted it. Shameful.

Post reply on HN