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

311–320 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#311

Post by alphabettsy »

tristor wrote: post #257
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #90

The early cases were very heavily concentrated around the Huanan wet market, but not around the lab, which is on the other side of the Wuhan, a pretty massive city.[0] If the virus had come from the lab, you'd expect the early cases to cluster around the lab. Instead, they were centered around a wet market, just like the early cases of the original SARS were back in 2002. This is completely aside from the other reaso…

" The closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory." [0] (page 119) [0] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-j...

Wasn’t the first case in November though?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#312

Post by [deleted] »

zthrowaway wrote: post #94
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…

Couldn’t a contributor to the lack of evidence be that the CCP blocked a lot of discovery from being conducted, and didn’t release enough information? We’re never going to know due to that alone. Obviously the optics would be really bad if they showed evidence that they leaked it accidentally. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/how-china-blocked...

[deleted]

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#313

Post by PraetorianGourd »

WithinReason wrote: post #155
zeven7 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find a note added by Nature's editors in March 2020 to be the least trustworthy part.

You mean it makes the lab leak hypothesis less trustworthy through appeal to authority, or it makes Nature less trustworthy because they made the comment instead of letting the reader make up their own minds based on the paper only?

I think it is most likely because the note is almost 3 years old. A lot has changed in our understanding of the virus. But much like most opinions regarding COVID, new data can’t seem to dislodge our first takes.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#314

Post by dmix »

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…

Another big one is how they purposefully lied about masks not working at first to protect supplies (or at least didn’t bother recommending them), then turned to everyone should use cloth masks, then cloth masks don’t work, and then masking kids all day long at school was pointless, etc.

The whole back and forth, unquestioning compliance at all costs strategy, and purposeful deception just makes everyone exhausted, skeptical, and builds resentment.

The worst part is that there isn’t any big plans in place to get supplies for better-than-N95 respirators for hospital workers. I have doubts even N95s will be widely available to the public by the next pandemic.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#315

Post by rhodorhoades »

I don’t know if it was initial propaganda or what, but literally right before COVID became a thing, there’s was a couple news articles that popped up on HN saying there has been a lab leak from wuhan and the government is locking down the area.

Three weeks later there’s this giant pandemic. I remember telling my wife about it in December before Christmas but now I can’t find any articles dating back to that time.

My point is not that the lab leak is true, but in this modern world is it literally impossible to know what’s true and what’s propaganda.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#316

Post by ausbah »

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…

>CDC's ever changing guidelines

this was much more of a presentation problem then anything. of course the science will change in the middle of new viral outbreak, people's perception of science just isn't that.

>liability-free, fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission

of course you'll fast track a solution when you have a global pandemic? seems like a no brainer? and I don't recall transmission ever being promised, only a substantial lower chance of severe infection and death - which was a main goal to help reduce loads on hospitals?

>labeling of media pushed medical hypothesis as "science" and any debate as heresy

medical hypothesis are a part of science? and I think there's definitely room for debate on how vaccines, closures, masks, etc. could have been done - but when the debate is just over if masks or vaccines even work it's kinda silly to be wasting time talking with the "opposition"

>the effortless militarization of common citizens to socially pressure and attack their neighbors into compliance

I don't see the problem with this sort of social pressure in regards to a pandemic. it's not like being reported to the "covid gestapo" for not social distancing for something

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#317

Post by apeace »

I'm wondering: what exactly is this virus research for anyways?

Whether or not this lab leaked the virus and caused the pandemic, I'm wondering why they are interested in engineering new variants of SARS-like viruses in the first place?

Are the detractors of the lab-leak theory saying "Yes, they engineered plenty of coronaviruses in the lab, there's just no evidence that any of them leaked out" or are they saying "No, this lab was never trying to engineer new coronaviruses"?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#318

Post by endominus »

RyEgswuCsn wrote: post #127
bamboozled wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't agree with this anymore. For some reason, this lab isn't allowed to be inspected and investigated thoroughly. So there is something wrong, likely, it's where COVID19 came from or else, why not just allow an investigation team in to remove all doubts.

Why would they? Would you allow your neighbours to search your home and inspect your computer as soon as they claim that you are a pedophile?

Probably not the comparison you want to make. If your door blew open in a strong wind one day and a bunch of CP flew out of it and around town, you probably wouldn't have a choice, no matter how convincing your story of the previous tenant being a sicko was.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#319

Post by shusaku »

skipkey wrote: post #225
jmyeet wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

The danger here is the birthday paradox. If it emerged at some other wet market, we would be attaching significance to some other city landmark to drive our alternate hypothesis.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#320

Post by oasisbob »

null_object wrote: post #166
hef19898 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Co-signing a letter is hardly covertly doing something, isn't it?

> Co-signing a letter is hardly covertly doing something, isn't it? Daszak made strenuous efforts to hide: • that he was the organizer and writer of the letter • that he had direct and invidious connections to the Wuhan Institute • that the signatories to the letter had any connection to EcoHealth Alliance or the Wuhan Institute All of the above were later confirmed by emails obtained via public record requests under…

> Daszak made strenuous efforts to hide [...] that the signatories to the letter had any connection to EcoHealth Alliance or the Wuhan Institute

That's a strange thing to argue given that Peter Daszak's position within EcoHealth Alliance is public and well-known, and he signed the letter publicly.

His extended conflict statement isn't exactly a smoking gun either:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Post reply on HN