Live data from Hacker News

Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

twitter.com

321–330 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#321

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…

I think you’re leaving out the part where, for political or other reasons, there are and were groups motivated to sell distrust in American institutions as well as their political rivals.

You cannot seriously have a debate about this mistrust without acknowledging the role of misinformation and motivated actors looking to sew mistrust.

Remember when 5G causing Covid was trending? Or memes about how hot water in a netipot would kill it? Or that if you had a strange cold anytime in 2019 you probably already had it?

Theories about microchips in the vaccine started spreading before the vaccine was announced. People becoming magnetic after the vaccine was trending.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#322

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…

Thanks for sharing this. For no expert in this field like me, peer-reviewed articles in a highly regarded publication like Science Magazine eliminated the lab theory. But I guess trust in science is unfortunately not as big as it was. And some people are biased as they want some theory to be true.

Here're some interesting parts from paper's concluding section.

>These findings suggest that infected animals were present at the Huanan market at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic; however, we do not have access to any live animal samples from relevant species. Additional information, including sequencing data and detailed sampling strategy, would be invaluable to test this hypothesis comprehensively.

>The sustained presence of a potential source of virus transmission into the human population in late 2019, plausibly from infected live mammals sold at the Huanan market, offers an explanation of our findings and the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

It doesn't eliminate or prove anything. Only makes a case that zoosis is a good hypothesis.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#323

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…

With the latest being: EUA approval, and the preemptive purchase of over 100M doses, of the new Pfizer/Moderna omicron vaccine after only being tested in mice.

Sure, its similar to previous iterations which have undergone human testing. Sure, we have a good understanding of how they work, theoretically. The FDA isn't an entirely corrupt and incompetent organization. But without human efficacy and safety data, it feels beyond likely to me that acceptance rates among even the "silent majority" of people will be low.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-authorize-new...

[2] https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/29/biden-harris-admin...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#324
post #38

I don’t go looking for covid discussions but they arrive in my feeds so i’m conscious i’m seeing a feed that someone(s) else curated for me and wanted me to view. That said… Is there any popular discussion or action regarding mitigation of both lab and natural origins for future? It seems that both avenues are possible. If we know both are possible, that seems like enough knowledge to move forward with exploring poss…

There’s a natural fork in the road here which is why this is so contentious. The best argument gain of function proponents have for their research (besides weaponization of course) is to create the next big thing in a lab first so that we can figure out how to neutralize it. The argument the anti-GoF advocates have is that creating the next big thing in a lab leads eventually/inevitably to at least one of them gettin…

> The best argument gain of function proponents have for their research (besides weaponization of course) is to create the next big thing in a lab first so that we can figure out how to neutralize it

Did that actually help in this case? Or are gain-of-function advocates the science equivalent of employees who want to rewrite your webapp in the language du jour? They say it's for the benefit of the company (humanity) but really what they want is to play with cool toys and get promotions.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#325

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…

Actually many people would like it to be false for personal profit or just human mentality. It's another ballpark of seriousness if that wasn't brought up by mother nature. What kind of evidence do you need? This paper is full of evidence that if you combine the probability of each event happening, the probability that it was accidental is really small. So the burden of probability should be to prove that it wasn't l…

> for personal profit

it's not just personal profit, I mean if it's true how would you react to it? Putting aside how it would affect research, it also would make many people including such in power blame China for it. Which would be a political nightmare not just for China but also US, EU, etc.

So if any secret service has proof it was a leak you can be sue they wait until there is a major conflict with China. Like e.g. because China attacking Taiwan before the US/EU become more independent of TSMC. Through at that point of time there is also a lot of insensitive to just make up a "proof". So the public probably will never know for sure.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that we were strongly told no and then yes with equal conviction is sufficient to demonstrate the point, regardless of whether masks work. Whether intentionally or not, media and governments can mislead in an in effect coordinated fashion. (Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as estab…

>(Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.) My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses, then I think you'll find that you'll _always_ be disappointed (or, more…

> My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses

The point is that if they are not certain then they should make it clear they are not certain. We were told very confidently that masks didn't work, that using them was nothing more than superstition. We are now told equally confidently that they do work. The establishment, taken as a whole, is extremely, dangerously overconfident.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#327

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.

There is no chance, that this is just a call for reform, for working oversight, for not outsourcing to the cheapest bidder, for a outside inquisition to have visits and quality control. For reproduceability? For a limiting of potentially exponetially dangerous research, like we are perfectly willing to push it with nuclear weapons? No, every one opposing my oppinion is a absolute enemy, there is only black and white and the institutions we have are perfect, right now, at this very moment.

All those yells, just from touching the pots.

Sorry, but this absolutist, finalist stating of facts, is verz unscientific in itself. Were does that sentiment, that yelling the loudest and ascribing every oppossition evil motives come from?

Its not very democratic. Not very scientific either.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that we were strongly told no and then yes with equal conviction is sufficient to demonstrate the point, regardless of whether masks work. Whether intentionally or not, media and governments can mislead in an in effect coordinated fashion. (Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as estab…

>(Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.) My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses, then I think you'll find that you'll _always_ be disappointed (or, more…

> My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses, then I think you'll find that you'll _always_ be disappointed (or, more likely given your 1984 reference, you'll _always_ be the "victim" of another imagined conspiracy).

When public policy is based on it, people are threatened with jail, forceably removed from outdoor open-air sporting events and denied basic services, yeah - you sure as hell better not be wrong about it.

When people in the street yell at you and call you a murderer for not wearing a mask outside in the sunshine (this happened to me) - yeah, you don't get to go back later and say "oops, my bad".

When the government exercises extraordinary emergency powers by executive fiat without legislative support to impose masking rules - they had better have damned good science to back it up.

In this case, the science simply didn't exist.

It's a strawman argument to claim "numerous studies show effectiveness of masking" as I've seen several people argue in this discussion.

The only relevant studies are those that evaluate the effectiveness of universal masking, since that's what the public policy dictated.

Universal masking policy was a knee-jerk response to some early studies and models that over estimated the risk of asymptomatic transmission. However, regardless of the new science that demonstrated that asymptomatic transmission was incredibly rare, the authorities refused to change the guidance.

Where was the science that justified the arbitrary and utterly performative rules put in place for restaurants? (wear a mask to walk three meters from the front door to the table, but it's ok to take it off when you're at the table)

Or the painfully performative masking of news people, in a studio by themselves, wearing a mask. Or wearing a mask alone in a car. Or on a walk outside. Or on a video conference for work.

Masks quickly stopped being about science very early on and quickly became nothing more than a flag for showing political alliance with the utter nonscientific nonsense of cloth masks and the overnight development of "fashion masks".

Forcing this on children was especially painful to watch. Children, who will never follow proper masking protocols and who are happy to trade their batman mask for their friend's spiderman mask...

> do hope your friends, family, and coworkers afford you more space to learn, grow, and change (and that you practice doing so!) than you afford to others.

I do hope that this entire episode and the bumbling, unscientific, incoherent and political face-saving response from the government makes you take a second look at blanket, authoritarian policy in the future.

Universal masking was the public health equivalent of the TSA. Illusory safety at best, with very little demonstrable effectiveness to justify the intrusion and restrictions put in place.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#329

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...

The first cases of Covid were in November 2019.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic#2019

Also, the new location is over 5km from the market.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Wuhan+Centres+for+Disease+Pr...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#330

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.

I think a lot of people in the lab leak community are looking for someone to blame, purely out of retribution, which is ultimately pointless.

Ignoring that contingent, it's still important to do a full postmortem after a catastrophe. If a bridge collapses, people don't say "oh well, life moves on". They figured out why it collapsed, and then design the next generation of bridges to not fail in that way. If you don't do the analysis, you can't do the mitigation.

Post reply on HN