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

481–490 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#481

Post by spookthesunset »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #465
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…

Science is a deeply personal philosophy that guides how an individual interacts with the rest of society. Skepticism, reproducibility, and verification. It is fundamentally _not_ trust based. The body of scientific knowledge is distinct from other forms of knowledge in that it is documented in such a way that you are able to independently validate it to reach the same conclusions yourself. Anything short of that is n…

Man that pissed me off. You’d get people you know in real life yelling at you for showing public data that went against the narrative. Society did anything but “follow the science”. In fact, it was completely the opposite. It was appeals to authority all the way down.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#482

Post by spookthesunset »

nradov wrote: post #405
tinco wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The liability-free fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission greatly restored my belief that we might survive the next large event. It was rolled out quickly, and it actually greatly reduced mortality. Reducing transmission would've been epic, but we can't win them all. The CDC's ever changing guidelines were good, but their not admitting that at some point the had been wrong or worse were flat…

Imposing mandatory curfews was never reasonable. That was never justified on an evidence-based medicine basis, and it violated the fundamental human right of free assembly. Those involved in policing such policies should be ashamed of themselves.

Shame this gets downvotes. If we are following the science there should be ample reproducible research out there (conduced before the pandemic) showing that curfews had enough benefits to justify their extreme costs.

But there is nothing. There is no research that lockdowns would be worth their cost either but here we are…

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#484

Post by tomjakubowski »

pwinnski wrote: post #350
rhodorhoades wrote: post #315

I don’t know if it was initial propaganda or what, but literally right before COVID became a thing, there’s was a couple news articles that popped up on HN saying there has been a lab leak from wuhan and the government is locking down the area. Three weeks later there’s this giant pandemic. I remember telling my wife about it in December before Christmas but now I can’t find any articles dating back to that time. My…

According to hn.algolia.com, the first mention of anything like you describe is from Jan 8, 2020[0], which isn't before Christmas 2019. The first US case was announced two weeks later, and "this giant pandemic" came a bit after that. I think your memory might be slightly off, although in completely understandable ways. Placing events on a personal timeline can be difficult. 0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=219…

I found one story posted on Jan 1, 2020 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21926713

FWIW, I've not found Algoila to be a reliable search engine for HN. In fact, when I narrowed my search down further to link it here, as below - that article disappeared from the results. (Also doesn't help that keyboard input to the date picker is totally broken)

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1578182400&dateRange=custom&...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#485

Post by anon291 »

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…

Nature does not 'manage to manufacture'. Genomic changes occur by random chance.

For example, nature did not intend to manufacture smallpox, when that became a thing 4-5000 years ago. Instead, some random pox virus (like monkey pox) infected some people and random changes happened to produce smallpox, which became endemic in the human population. Then, another mutation happened that caused hemmorhagic smallpox to become a thing and to start killing people (the vast majority of smallpox strains do not have high death rates, although they can cause bad disability, although no one knows if they would with modern medicine).

So nature can produce anything a human can. But certainly, human intervention to make a disease worse can also make terrible diseases.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#486

Post by slg »

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #478
slg wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think you’re leaving out the part where, for political reasons, there are and were groups motivated to sell distrust in American institutions as well as their political rivals. The conversations on HN about the lab leak hypothesis always leave this out. They often imply the politicization of covid came from scientists trying to protect themselves rather than from politicians. Maybe the lab leak theory is true, but…

Not true. Lab leak hypothesis came up early from NIH's own people. We have the emails. Government officials had these emails before "We the people" did so would have been first to sound the alarm publicly. https://nypost.com/2022/01/24/emails-reveal-suspected-covid-... https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114270/documents/...

I'm unclear what specifically in those links do you think contradicts what I said. The lab theory being discussed in scientific circles does not change the fact that politicians are the ones who pushed it into public discourse for their own gain and not because of any scientific pursuit of truth.

Also side note, an opinion piece from the New York Post isn't exactly the most trustworthy source.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#487

Post by initplus »

null_object wrote: post #122
scotchmi_st wrote: post #45

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…

> 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. Note that the addendum to the paper was added in March 2020, when Peter Daszak and many others directly associated with the Wuhan Institute were working covertly[0] to destroy any rational or scientific debate about the origins of covid. The Lancet letter…

Daszak acted unethically regardless of the actual truth of the lab leak hypothesis.

His actions were a self serving attempt to muddy the waters on investigation of the virus origin, and may have prevented conclusive proof one way or the other from ever emerging. I doubt Daszak himself knows for sure. But if there is a risk that you are responsible, why not try cover it up anyway. Just in case?

Same reasoning goes for the Chinese government.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#488

Post by WithinReason »

igouy wrote: post #453
WithinReason wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus. Well, 2 things: 1. An animal could be the source of the virus which could be leaked from a lab. Even with the lab leak hypothesis an animal is part of the chain, just not the last step. 2. There is also no evidence that the epidemic had no lab involvement. COVID was never found in any animal from t…

> … no evidence that the epidemic had no lab involvement… "So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim." https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_re... . What would you accept as evidence of "no lab involvement"?

> What would you accept as evidence of "no lab involvement"?

Read the last sentence.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#489

Post by elcomet »

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…

Lab-leaked doesn't mean lab-made. Those labs also study natural viruses.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#490

Post by initplus »

BrainVirus wrote: post #211

Did someone come up with a good explanation of why Peter Daszak and various affiliates of EcoHealth alliance were involved in nearly all the media "coverage" (dismissals) of the lab leak hypothesis when it first popped up? And why The Lancet published the initial letter dismissing lab leak, clearly coordinated by EcoHealth alliance? And why Daszak also was on the WHO investigation team? And why to this day no one apo…

This is only evidence of Daszak/EcoHealth being unethical. I doubt he has access to a secret "smoking gun" conclusively proving lab leak vs zoonotic.

If there is a chance you are responsible, why not cover it up and muddy the waters, just in case?

Post reply on HN