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

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#421

Post by PathOfEclipse » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

gilbetron wrote: post #348

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response should be a comedic parody, yet, sadly, you are actually being serious. It's a depressing reflection on the state of the world. I said there are zero RCTs, a type of study that can establish causation, and you respond, "there are lots of mask studies! You just aren't looking!" Your response literally contradicts nothing that I said. I even linked a BMJ-published opinion lamenting the fact that there are…

First google hit, not difficult: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y Again, you have an agenda that is at odds with reality, please stop, it is literally hurting people.

I guess it's possible you don't actually know the difference, but what you linked isn't a research paper or study; it's a news article! And it's factually incorrect. It cites the Bangladesh RCT, which I am well aware of already. The trial results showed little to no statistically significant benefit to masking: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360320982_The_Bangl...

"A very large trial, whose results were published in Science, carried out in Bangladesh between 2020 and 2021 has been widely acclaimed as providing the most convincing evidence yet that masks work in reducing Covid-19 transmission and infections. However, the media grossly exaggerated the authors' own conclusions, and sceptical researchers have identified weaknesses in various aspects of the trial and statistical analysis which cast doubts on the significance of the results."

Also: https://www.justfactsdaily.com/famed-bangladesh-mask-study-e...

"However, their pre-analysis plan to measure results for “each decade” of age ranges shows no statistically significant effects among people aged 18–29, 30–39, 40–49, and 70+. Furthermore, they excluded this breakdown from their paper and relegated it to a supplement."

Also: https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/bangladesh-study-proves-m...

Also: https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/09/02/clinical-trial-banglade...

Also: https://anthonycolpo.com/the-bangladesh-mask-study-is-back-a...

"One especially illuminating finding, which would be funny were it not a reflection of just how far science has fallen, is that purple cloth masks showed no advantage over going maskless, but red cloth masks did. Red cloth masks, in fact, showed higher 'efficacy' than surgical masks."

One of us two is at odds with reality. That may be true. But here's a hint. It's not me. When you're done with your baseless and tribalistic accusations of my "agenda", maybe you can humble yourself enough to learn something today.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#422

Post by arisAlexis » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:28 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #386

arisAlexis wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can we prevent a volcano erupting? No. Can we prevent a lab leak? Yes. I wonder why people are soooo resistant to this idea and make up a myriad bad arguments.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#423

Post by slg » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #407

slg wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Please give us a complete list of the topics about which we are no longer allowed to ask questions.

Where did I say you can't ask questions? I said asking questions is a bad rhetorical device to use on this topic. OP isn't an inquisitive mind looking for answers to those questions. They are trying to convince us of a particular viewpoint due to the implied answers to those questions.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#424

Post by Izkata » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:38 PM UTC

ralph84 wrote: post #365

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…

> 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…

No, "prevent covid" means people didn't get sick, which is defined by symptoms. That press release isn't conflating SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) with COVID-19 (the disease); it says nothing about stopping infection/transmission.

That outcome could have been reached by either preventing infection or just reducing symptoms, and they made no attempt to claim which it was because they didn't test for it.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#425

Post by pelasaco » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

rhodorhoades wrote: post #342

pelasaco wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

less media, better organization, clear strategy, more transparency and honesty. We saw what we cannot do well. We suffered with many gaps and did so many mistakes that shouldn't be repeated.

What was showed by the government is that we don’t have transparency and honesty. The head of the CDC essentially said “masks don’t work”, then came out and said “ just kidding, they work but we needed to lie to you so you wouldn’t panic buy all the masks. Go ahead and go panic buy all the masks now” Americans don’t like to be talked at, they like to be talked to. As a country, we want all the information but we want…

I think it's ok to change an opinion, that's what science is about. However the tone was really dishonest, right? When it was brought up first time[1][2], it was more important to wall-up then truly communicate... on another hand, maybe it was just too many media coverage, everyone wanting to deliver the last news, demanding answers that weren't available.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...

[2] https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200608/who-changes-stance-...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#426

Post by wk_end » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #352

wk_end wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

No, I'm not saying that. Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't said a single thing here about "a man-made descendent", or whether those bats are "likely" to be present or not. I haven't even said that I agree with Ebright or believe in any kind of lab-leak scenario. All I've said is that your accusation of "spin" - because Ebright simply stated what all existing evidence points to, that the closest candidate bats are 1000 miles away, is the case without qualification - is based on a misunderstanding of how science works. Until there is evidence to the contrary - and there currently is not - it is entirely normal, conventional, and scientific - and not spin! - to state the facts as demonstrated by all the available evidence as facts. In particular, when you say, "we just know what we measured, not what we didn't" - yes, that is science, not intellectual dishonesty.

That said, I'll bite: if there are bats with SARS-like coronaviruses closer to Wuhan, I suspect that the folks in Wuhan who've spent the past 15-20 years studying SARS-like bat coronaviruses, "sampling thousands of horseshoe bats in locations across China" [0], probably would have discovered the ones right on their doorstep, more probably than ones further afield. So sure, yes, I'd wager they're not all that likely (though not impossible)! But, again, that's neither here nor there to my overall point, which is that your accusation of spin on Ebright's part is unfounded and scientifically illiterate.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology#SA...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#427

Post by ok_computer » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

xtracto wrote: post #410

honkdaddy wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What medium would you recommend Mr. Ebright use to deliver his message to his 50,000 followers, plus the other several hundred thousand who would have seen it given its popularity? He didn't write this for HN users to read, it's pretty unrealistic for us to expect people format their publishing to fit the preferences of nerdy HN readers.

A Substack/Medium/Wordpress-online-blog URL is less than 280 chars twitter limit.

I agree any of those blogging sites would be a better format, even though I'm not a Medium fan. He's also listed Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Rutgers and I understand this isn't their official position but there could be a faculty page or some other publication or editorial site.

And he could link to the blog article from his tweet. The downside is it wouldn't have as great viral potential but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Any page with all the bullet points in one place would serve better than an ephemeral twitter thread. If his followers regard him they may follow the link.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#428

Post by nradov » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:58 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #423

nradov wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please give us a complete list of the topics about which we are no longer allowed to ask questions.

Where did I say you can't ask questions? I said asking questions is a bad rhetorical device to use on this topic. OP isn't an inquisitive mind looking for answers to those questions. They are trying to convince us of a particular viewpoint due to the implied answers to those questions.

Please give us a comprehensive list of topics for which asking questions is a bad rhetorical device. I'd like to understand the basis for your claim, and how you presume to know what's in OP's mind?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#429

Post by goblin89 » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 6:59 PM UTC

ChrisLomont wrote: post #404

goblin89 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-mak…

>what about the prior probability of a good-faith statement in presence of a strong conflict of interest? The definition of your prior would incorporate that. >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? That is exactly the purpose of priors and Bayesian belief systems. If you could verify any truth, you'd not ne…

Say we are weighing the probability of the lab leak hypothesis being correct. Incoming evidence suggests a lab leak is hurtful to a wider array of institutions and individuals than assumed originally. We use this new evidence, along with previous beliefs on how likely lab leak would be in the first place based on priors like biosafety violation and spillover history and statements made by the above-mentioned individuals and institutions (considered authoritative, but now found possibly in conflict of interest), to form a new belief which we then use as a new prior when assessing how likely it is that the lab leak hypothesis is correct. End result: lab leak hypothesis being correct is assigned a lower prior likelihood and will require stronger evidence. Do we disagree on substance?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#430

Post by PathOfEclipse » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 7:02 PM UTC

gilbetron wrote: post #347

nostrebored wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and fitted N95s are not safe for prolonged wear. There are exactly zero RCTs that suggest that masks are effective, the parent comment is correct. The single RCT that claims effectiveness was on hamsters. Completely missing from pro-mask discourse is potential impact of large-scale masking on children. Developmental delays are starting to pop up, and previous public health advocates for masking are starting to…

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y Your first two statements are just wrong, shockingly so after over 2 years where you could have educated yourself and decided not to. Your last statement is definitely something we need to look into, but I think the development delays are probably minimal (speaking as a parent of a kid that wore masks at a critical age), but I think the social isolation was far more…

"The study linked surgical masks with an 11% drop in risk, compared with a 5% drop for cloth."

The cloth results were statistically insignificant, meaning indistinguishable from noise. The surgical mask results barely passed the statistical significance test, but lose that significance as soon as the data are stratified by age.

On top of that, there have been numerous problems with the study that call into questions even the incredibly meager positive results it managed to show: https://www.justfactsdaily.com/famed-bangladesh-mask-study-e...

You are the one who needs to educate yourself.