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

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#361

Post by nomel » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #316

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 transmissio…

> of course the science will change in the middle of new viral outbreak

No. Science very very rarely changes. The confidence in the possible explanations is what changes. They communicated low confidence information with high confidence. The trust was destroyed with, what appeared to be, a concerted effort to silence those that accurately communicated the low confidence, or presented other equally possible, and far too often eventually-correct, understandings. I think this covers all the other points, above.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#362

Post by pragmar » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 3:59 PM UTC

tadfisher wrote: post #2

So was the first outbreak at the lab or at the wet market? I feel like everything else is circumstantial and conspiracy-laden.

There's evidence that it was neither. Blood tests of athletes that competed in the Wuhan Military games in October 2019 point to the virus circulating earlier. The timeline that much of the conversation rests on feels kind of weak.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#363

Post by chopin » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:04 PM UTC

alphabettsy wrote: post #321

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…

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 net…

Many institutions are handling Covid in the worst possible way. The clinic of the University of Heidelberg (a scientific institution tasked with educating physicians) for instance insists on the 3G rule for admittance (either vaccinated, recovered or tested for COVID). Either COVID is dangerous, then only testing helps, or it is not dangerous, than testing only a subgroup is irrational.

The entire health policy in Germany is in denial of the fact that the vaccination doesn't help against transmission. Refreshers are sold as helping against post- and long-COVID where there is only little scientific evidence for it.

I don't think that it is necessary for anybody to sow mistrust in institutions. Those handle that on their own pretty well.

The Rubikon was crossed with telling that masks don't help - against better knowledge. Only to avoid a run on masks and to reserve them for health workers. After that, I took everything being told with good chunk of salt.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#364

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:05 PM UTC

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...

The Wuhan Institute of Virology, which studied RaTG13, is not the same thing as the Wuhan CDC.

Two points about RaTG13:

1. RaTG13 is not the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2. It's not even the closest known relative any more. A closer relative has since been found in the wild, in bats in Laos.

2. RaTG13 doesn't even exist in live form in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It only exists there as data on a hard drive, obtained by sequencing traces of RNA in a swab taken from a bat in the wild. A replicating form of the virus has never actually obtained. It's much more difficult to isolate a replicating virus than it is to sequence RNA in a sample. In fact, the WIV has only ever isolated three SARS-like viruses, all of which are publicly known and have been heavily publicized by the WIV (because it's a big deal, scientifically, and reflects well on them).

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#365

Post by ralph84 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:06 PM UTC

ausbah wrote: post #316

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 transmissio…

> I don't recall transmission ever being promised, only a substantial lower chance of severe infection and death

No, that was the spin after it became clear they didn’t prevent infection or transmission. When they were given EUA they were sold as 95% effective at preventing covid[0], and there are plenty of clips of officials including the president of the US saying if you get vaccinated you won’t get or spread covid. Nothing about reducing symptoms. Heck, read the prescribing info[1]. It still says the indication is to prevent covid, not reduce symptoms.

[0] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

[1] https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=15623&forma...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#366

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

carrolldunham wrote: post #120

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…

>If the virus had come from the lab, you'd expect the early cases to cluster around the lab. No, because it's not proposed that the virus leaked out of the lab building into the nearby air. I presume it's more like a person who worked at the lab getting infected, and then moving around the city as normal, needing only to infect one other person, anywhere in the city.

And that person just happened to go all the way across the city to a wet market that sells the same sorts of animals that caused the original SARS outbreak in 2002?

The earliest known cases are people who worked at the market or lived right next to it. That's exactly what you'd expect for an outbreak caused by animals at the market.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#367

Post by pnf » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #309

pnf wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

I specifically said that no conspiracy is required, that the mechanism is baked into the system.

As for the rest of the world, all the information is NOT accessible and public. Far from it. China is notoriously secretive and the US bio-security industry certainly isn't more forthcoming. Second, who says there isn't a control mechanism for non-US research science? Where does funding come from outside the US and how is it any different from the situation inside the US? The Atlanticist alliance is one center of knowledge-power. The BRICS may be another. But the idea of sovereignty operating at the country level is absurd on its face. Tell that to th EU member states. Most countries are effectively vassal states for the major powers. You can easily see what happens when they act independently. That's geopolitics 101.

Like the US, China is a major source of funding for developing countries in what it considers to be its sphere of influence. So, pick your poison. Either the US hegemonic science industrial complex or the Chinese version. Either way, savvy people don't shit where they eat. Who do you think wants to take a swing at China? A full investigation of Wuhan (and Ukraine) would likely reveal the hand of the biodefense industry evading local laws by laundering illegal weapons research through fronts like EcoHealth Alliance. Would you like to go up against that? I sure wouldn't.

For your version of things to make sense, you would also need to explain the embargo on the publication of dissenting research across the major US and European journals. Did you propose that just happened organically? Reality is catching up to politics and the consensus is shifting of necessity or the system will lose all remaining credibility.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#368

Post by logic_beats_pro » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #297

gfodor wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Just my personal opinion here, I think this is an acceptable rhetorical device normally, but specifically in covid discussions this is an off-putting approach. "Just asking questions" is a common strategy among covid deniers and anti-vax folks who are also often pro-lab leak hypothesis. When I see a comment like the top most one in this thread, I can't tell if the author is actually coming to this discussion in good…

Yes, asking questions is now enough to get you labeled a conspiracy nut job.

That toddler who continuously asks "why?" ten times in a row - conspiracy crank!!!

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#369

Post by DiogenesKynikos » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

JetSetWilly wrote: post #118

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…

> It started at a wet market on the other side of the city. That's been very solidly established now. That's simply not true at all, whatsoever. See for example this paper sequencing early samples of the virus: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/12/5211/6353034?logi... The "wet market" samples are less similar to closely related bat strains than other early samples which are unrelated to the market. The market i…

Your information is out of date. The paper I linked to shows that both early strains of the virus were present at the Huanan market. That is already very strong evidence that the market was the origin point of the original outbreak in Wuhan, and not merely a superspreader event.

We now know that early cases were centered on the market, that both strains were present in the market, and that the types of wild animals that caused the original SARS outbreak in 2002 were being sold at the market.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#370

Post by honkdaddy » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #297

gfodor wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Just my personal opinion here, I think this is an acceptable rhetorical device normally, but specifically in covid discussions this is an off-putting approach. "Just asking questions" is a common strategy among covid deniers and anti-vax folks who are also often pro-lab leak hypothesis. When I see a comment like the top most one in this thread, I can't tell if the author is actually coming to this discussion in good…

"Just asking questions" is also a common strategy among people who would like answers to their questions. I spent a long time in 2006 asking questions online about USA's actions in the Middle East, and what I found was that there was indeed an incredible amount of coverup and half-truths from both sides of the political aisle. Despite this, I was naturally called a "9/11 truther" or whatever insult could be applied to someone who wanted honesty from the world's most powerful government.

It's not in bad-faith or manipulative; there are people on this site who have a full and total belief that the Wuhan lab leak is entirely a conspiracy, so earnestly asking for clarification on how they came to that decision seems perfectly reasonable to me.

In 2003 if someone was "just asking questions" about climate change and its future effects, I don't doubt skeptics online would try to unfairly lump them in with conspiracy theorists claiming the world would be on fire by 2010. It seems to me that the best way to convince people that the lab leak is not a reality would just be to answer their earnest questions, rather than lumping them in with anti-vaxers.