Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis • Hacker News Board

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#301

Post by BryantD » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:11 PM UTC

arisAlexis wrote: post #53

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…

Actually all of his claims are facts unless proven otherwise. Do you have proof that these facts (Wuhan playing with these viruses, funding etc) are not true or you would like them to not be true?

It’s a fact that I had coffee with someone who grew up a thousand miles away from me yesterday. If I were to infer from that fact that there was something unusual about that, I would be wrong.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#302

Post by dylan604 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:12 PM UTC

boltzmann-brain wrote: post #279

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…

> it's far from the only risky work going on in labs around the world what else could you bring up?

Tesla style wireless electricity delivery. If "don't cross the streams" was ever applicable...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#303

Post by programmarchy » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

spywaregorilla wrote: post #212

b4je7d7wb wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could be subconciously following the herd

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

It’s not irrelevant because a herd behaves in a monolithic way.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#304

Post by mikkergp » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:14 PM UTC

sinecure wrote: post #274

I think covid's lasting impact will be one of vastly growing mistrust in the political and scientific organizations that society looks to for guidance. From the CDC's ever changing guidelines, the liability-free, fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission, the labeling of media pushed medical hypothesis as "science" and any debate as heresy, the effortless militarization of common citizens to so…

The question I want to know is how much of this is "bad" corruption (worse than you would find in a 350 million population relatively free democracy/republic) and how much of this is sausage making. Was there any reasonable way for this to go well, given the realities of living in a complex democracy where we don't agree on how it should have gone? Is it inevitable that societal trust breaks down just because societies are complex things? So far, I've been losing more sleep over the people losing trust than the people breaking trust.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#305

Post by forgotpwd16 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:15 PM UTC

arisAlexis wrote: post #53

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…

Actually all of his claims are facts unless proven otherwise. Do you have proof that these facts (Wuhan playing with these viruses, funding etc) are not true or you would like them to not be true?

The "all claims are facts unless proven otherwise" is a wrong way to think about. You must prove a claim, not the other way around. What is perhaps better to say is that he makes no arguments but just lists observations (nitpick: therefore can be no such thing as rebuttal). As the commentary tweets don't call them wrong, we can assume they're indeed correct (thus nothing was debunked). That said, I'ld have preferred if he had correct citations such as the link to the Nature article.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#306

Post by bigodbiel » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

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 disagree, I hope that lableak confirmation will push for a reassessment on the risk reward ratios for research. It may slow down scientific process, but we can now see that the dangers, if catastrophic enough, even if minimal, may not warrant it.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#307

Post by nostrebored » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

gilbetron wrote: post #217

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eve…

Right, and fitted N95s are not safe for prolonged wear.

There are exactly zero RCTs that suggest that masks are effective, the parent comment is correct. The single RCT that claims effectiveness was on hamsters.

Completely missing from pro-mask discourse is potential impact of large-scale masking on children. Developmental delays are starting to pop up, and previous public health advocates for masking are starting to turn course.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#308

Post by programmarchy » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

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.

> not a monolith > I highly doubt any of them

Do you see the problem with your reasoning here?

If you say scientists are not a monolith, then you don’t get to make sweeping generalizations about them.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#309

Post by fzeroracer » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

pnf wrote: post #248

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…

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…

The problem with your argument and anyone else's argument that alleges grand conspiracy among scientists is that you always take a US centric view and pretend the US is the only place in the world with scientists.

Scientists like many other individuals are divided by country. There are many countries out there that would love to do nothing but prove that this was a lab leak so that they could take a swing at China. All of that information is accessible and public.

In order for grand corruption theory to make sense you would need to posit some way not only for the US to suppress this information perfectly but also control every single other countries scientific research.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#310

Post by dylan604 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:16 PM UTC

jcims wrote: post #214

throwaway290 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Luckily, before that happens, humans will have killed themselves off and turned the planet into Venus 2.0. That way, the rogue planet doesn't have to feel guilty of wiping out an advanced species.