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

351–360 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#351

Post by BryantD »

effie wrote: post #343
BryantD wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t convince me because we have a recent covid-related example of scientists making a significant mistake and admitting it: namely, the primary means of transmission. At the beginning of the pandemic, the scientific community argued that transmission was surface-based. As more data came in, it became evident that transmission was aerosol-related. This was a huge mistake with significant implications, but nob…

Admitting scientists were wrong in their claims on science does not hurt societal standing of science or funding. The cost is very low, everybody expects scientists to be wrong on science from time to time. Admitting scientists may have caused the pandemic is on a whole another level. Societal status and funding may be pulled. The cost is so huge it makes relevant scientists unlikely to admit any of the sort.

I don’t have a great way to prove this, because we’re arguing about a hypothetical, but I think you’re wrong.

Let me try one similar but non-medical counter-example. People are still willing to get on planes, even though Boeing 737 MAX engineering flaws caused 346 deaths.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#352

Post by ajross »

wk_end wrote: post #203
ajross wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a scientific context, it's not spin to omit stating "based on all available empirical evidence" after every assertion. No, that's a fallacy. If I find an apple on the ground at the supermarket, it is evidence that there are apples at the supermarket. It is not evidence that there are no apples at my friend's home where I found no apples. I just didn't check the refrigerator. The linked thread says, precisely, "W…

If I were saying "bats in southern China with SARS-like viruses are evidence that there are no bats closer to Wuhan with SARS-like coronaviruses", I would be committing the fallacy that you're accusing me of. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there's no evidence of any bats closer to Wuhan with SARS-like coronaviruses. And I'm saying that, while it's indeed possible that these hypothetical bats exist -…

> I'm saying that there's no evidence of any bats closer to Wuhan with SARS-like coronaviruses

That's not all you're saying, though. You're extrapolating from that fact to argue that bats closer to Wuhan with SARS-like coronaviruses are therefore unlikely to be present.[1] And no, that's not correct. Viruses span continent-wide gaps all the time, we don't need any special evidence to cite that as a possibility.

[1] Or more specifically, that they're less likely to be present than a man-made descendent. This is how you can spot a poorly justified argument. You're skipping a step and inserting an assumption in exactly the way you need to address a hole in your argument. Again, I pointed out upthread how I can spin exactly the same facts in the opposite direction (IMHO more convincingly, though logically no more sound).

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#353

Post by virusduck »

kgermino wrote: post #235
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.

Because we want to learn from our mistakes. Whether it came from a wild animal, a lab, or something else there are lessons we should learn to help prevent it from happening again. It's an overused example, but it's a good one. Flying is extremely safe. Not because it's an inherently safe activity, but because every time something happens we stop and ask why. We don't accept simple answers like "the pilot screwed up"…

Whether or not this happened in reality, it is still a good learning experience.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#354

Post by hackerlight »

yonaguska wrote: post #284
hackerlight wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a conspiracy. Conspiracy implies planning and plotting. That was just decentralized media figures deciding to copy each other's opinions, because there's safety in numbers and group think, and because dissent sticks out and gets attacked.

If you still think we have decentralized media figures simply copying each other...when all your media companies air the same advertisements from the same pharmaceutical companies, it's no surprise that they would all take the same opinions. Speaking for American media only. They might not be conspiring with each other, but they are certainly are taking orders from the same places. This doesn't cover the other news e…

> They might not be conspiring with each other, but they are certainly are taking orders from the same places.

I don't see enough evidence for this claim.

The simpler explanation is that they're lazy (as most humans are) and scared to dissent (as most humans are), therefore they don't bother doing original work that challenges the accepted wisdom and they copy each other.

I do have some evidence for this. Within hours of the Amber Heard judgement came down, identical false claims about the judgement were blasted across all major news sites. I am rather confident that there was no nefarious plot here, because the stakes were so low and didn't involve powerful actors, and because non-US news outlets parroted the same fake news. Is there some secret clandestine organization doing this, coordinating with US and non-US news sources, on a story of no political significance? I saw the fake news get manufactured in front of my eyes. What happened was there was a viral tweet that created the fake claim, then one journalist picked up on it, and then all the other journalists copied that one journalist, because that's lower effort and safer than doing a thorough job.

Occam's razor + hanlon's razor.

> This article [1] goes into details about various factchecking organizations that worked in Ukraine to promote and minimalize the extreme sides of far right orgs in Ukraine since before the Russian invasion.

Lol, very few people are minimizing Azov or other far-right groups in Ukraine. Everyone knows they're a huge problem (albeit they are a problem that is caused by Russia's invasion in 2014 - Ukraine, being much smaller, doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing who is allowed to fight, given the imminent threat of further invasion from a larger neighbor). They are mostly just countering the Kremlin's propaganda that Ukraine is run by drug-addicted banderites and that Azov, a fairly small unit, is representative of the entire military and political leadership. The Russian propaganda around this was insane, helped along by treacherous US crypto fascists, and so hypocritical given that neo-Nazi views are more widely subscribed inside Russia than in Ukraine according to Pew polling, and given that the head of Wagner (whom Putin has shaken hands with) is an open neo-nazi with SS tattoos on his neck, and given that Pushilin has been seen awarding a medal to an open neo-nazi, and given that Putin himself is a literal fascist compared to the democratically elected Zelenskyy.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#355

Post by spywaregorilla »

programmarchy wrote: post #308
spywaregorilla wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Sure you can. Humans are not a monolith but humans don't worship the Dark God-Eater Yglocth-Tyr. Both statements are accurate.

Largely because he doesn't exist, in much the same way as there's no such thing as a macro level threat to scientists ability to ask for funding. It's not a real concept.

If you feel compelled to argue that there may be some people who do act this way despite it being irrelevant, great, you win points on pedantry and nothing changes.

This line: > Remember all it takes a single dissenter to bury a paper.

Is not accurate

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#356

Post by waynesonfire »

thedorkknight wrote: post #266
yonaguska wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lets have the data and facts speak for what Peter Daszaks motivase are.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#357

Post by dmix »

tmaly wrote: post #222
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 think we are going to find out soon: https://news.yahoo.com/china-locks-down-65-million-095328796...

> 33 cities including seven provincial capitals are under full or partial lockdown covering more than 65 million people

> It said that outbreaks have been reported in 103 cities, the highest since the early days of the pandemic in early 2020.

Crazy, it's like the rest of the world moved on but China is still in 2020.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#358

Post by yonaguska »

thedorkknight wrote: post #266
yonaguska wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's true, it needs to be addressed. If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses. Instead, he hides and deflects. Unfortunately, it's become a right vs left issue, so he has an entire political establishment deflecting for him on his behalf.

It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#359

Post by goblin89 »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #244
goblin89 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree if we’re considering the prior probability of lab leak vs. spillover, where priors can be informed by e.g. laboratory biosecurity track record and such.

However, what about the prior probability of a good-faith statement in presence of a strong conflict of interest? Having no ability to directly verify the truth, wouldn’t you require stronger evidence if you were to rely on that statement in your decision-making?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#360

Post by slg »

yonaguska wrote: post #358
thedorkknight wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that's true, it needs to be addressed. If it's true, then Peter Daszak, surely would have evidence that would exonerate him, along with corroborating witnesses. Instead, he hides and deflects. Unfortunately, it's become a right vs left issue, so he has an entire political establishment deflecting for him on his behalf. It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspi…

>It's human nature, if you are already predisposed to a suspicion, then the subject of that suspicion does something shady, this only confirms your suspicion.

Which is why the presumption of innocence is central to most modern judicial systems and is widely recognized as a human right. Why should we throw out that principal in this specific instance?

Post reply on HN