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

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#381

Post by thedorkknight » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:25 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #360

yonaguska wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Also, Hanson's Razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Basically, its entirely possible that Daszak is covering up a lab leak. Its also entirely possible he's an arrogant asshole who got scared of the implication that there was a lab leak.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#382

Post by slg » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:27 PM UTC

honkdaddy wrote: post #370

slg wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

>"Just asking questions" is also a common strategy among people who would like answers to their questions.

OP specifically said "If you don't admit these (now-obvious) facts". They aren't looking for answers. They believe the answers are obvious facts. They are using the questions as a rhetorical device. I pointed out this is a bad rhetorical device to use in this instance. It was not a dismissal of their underlying point. It was saying their argument about their underlying point was unconvincing.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#383

Post by slg » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:28 PM UTC

logic_beats_pro wrote: post #368

slg wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!!!

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

Well if the toddler is asking questions about the lab leak hypothesis...

I explicitly said it is a generally acceptable approach that doesn't work on this specific topic because of the reasons listed.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#384

Post by mikkergp » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:28 PM UTC

nomel wrote: post #372

robomartin wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

And, it has reached the top, with the most disturbing phrase I’ve seen come out of the White House [1]: “When you are not with where the majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.” 1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dButKWnTmG8&feature=emb_title

Isn't this just the definition of the word extreme? I mean, I get that maybe they're using the word extreme to equal bad (maybe not), but I think this is just the definition of the word.

Why do you think it's bad to have an extreme opinion? I probably have quite a few of extreme opinions. Some wrong, some right, some I cherish, some I dismiss.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#385

Post by mikkergp » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:31 PM UTC

nomel wrote: post #361

ausbah wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 t…

"We're sorry millions of you are dying, but we got nothing for ya'" may be good science but horrific politics.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#386

Post by ethbr0 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

arisAlexis wrote: post #255

ethbr0 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what probability does the burden of proof shift?

Although you can find a Bayesian answer for this which I am not qualified to calculate, it's irrelevant. The most pressing issue is not to dismiss it as zero probability as has been until know because it is viewed as a conspiracy. Even if the probability is very small we have to dig in deeper to prevent the next catastrophe.

> Even if the probability is very small we have to dig in deeper to prevent the next catastrophe.

There are very small chances of many catastrophes that we happily ignore.

Among the less small ones, off the top of my head: a large earthquake on the San Andreas fault and the Yellowstone supervolcano erupting.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#387

Post by cycomanic » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:38 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #156

chaosbolt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Hitchens' razor applies- what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence Say mr X was seen at the crime scene at 10 am, he also knew the victim and lots of people have seen them fight a week ago, the victim had just came out of the bank with 20k$ in cash in a bag, mr X who's broke have been seen driving a car a month after the crime worth 18k$. There is no evidence mr X killed the vic…

But in science at least you always should test against the null hypothesis, and that is purposefully not done here like in many other "conspiracy theories". Note I'm not saying that the lab leak is necessarily a conspiracy theory or that it can not be true, I'm simply talking about the way of arguing. The way a lot of conspiracy arguments are being constructed is that they take a number of events which seem relativel…

Replying to myself, seems like I went to the 1password.community page, which somehow is the 1st search result for me.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#388

Post by parkingrift » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:41 PM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #130

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.

Not allowing investigation is not necessary conspiracy to cover up known evidence. It might just be an admission that there is a nonzero chance there is evidence there... and if the world finds that, there could be dire consequences if people decide China should be held liable.

It’s not just stonewalling an investigation. It’s outright destruction of files and documents so that an investigation literally cannot happen. Wiping servers, destroying emails, shredding files, burning samples. These are things that don’t necessarily implicate you in guilt, but make you look guilty.

It’s just kind of rich for people to grandstand and say “there’s no evidence to support this theory” when the evidence that may support it has been systematically destroyed. There is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a search, and if this lab situation had unfolded in the US the lab would have been searched.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#389

Post by nomel » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #330

smrtinsert wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> purely out of retribution, which is ultimately pointless.

If a mad scientist was making a better bomb design, and accidentally blew up a million people through negligence, would your perspective be different? What about a bridge that collapses and kills people? Engineers go to prison for that. There needs to be accountability for, demonstrably, one of the most dangerous acts that can be done.

I would be perfectly ok with the the lab being shut down/redesigned, if a flaw in its design were found, and any negligent scientists and safety officers being removed/prosecuted.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#390

Post by kbelder » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 4:44 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #326

ubertaco wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(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…

I don't think they were confident, but they thought they needed to pretend to be confident. Consider it the side effect of presumably competent scientists spending too much time with politicians and PR departments.

And that's why they ended up seeming like liars, and can't be trusted.