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

511–520 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#511

Post by somehnguy »

dmix wrote: post #314
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…

Another big one is how they purposefully lied about masks not working at first to protect supplies (or at least didn’t bother recommending them), then turned to everyone should use cloth masks, then cloth masks don’t work, and then masking kids all day long at school was pointless, etc. The whole back and forth, unquestioning compliance at all costs strategy, and purposeful deception just makes everyone exhausted, sk…

N95 masks have been widely available to the public for a long time, via any department or store that carries home improvement supplies. They’re used for a variety of things.

Like a year ago I walked into Home Depot and bought a 3 pack to wear while doing some sanding.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#512

Post by 404mm »

eloff wrote: post #456
kurupt213 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their vaccine being worthless didn’t help

It is not very effective from what I've seen. They would have been better off contracting with Pfizer or other Western companies that had effective vaccines. Cheap made in China crap that doesn't work. I kid, sort of.

No post body was provided.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#513

Post by TrispusAttucks »

slg wrote: post #486
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The theory is popular because it's logical and has tons of circumstantial evidence. Full stop.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#514

Post by nradov »

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 certainly manufactured HCoV-OC43, another betacoronavirus very similar to SARS-CoV-2. It is the leading suspect for causing a worldwide pandemic which killed a lot of people starting in 1889.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#515

Post by dmix »

endgame wrote: post #461
dmix wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another big one is how they purposefully lied about masks not working at first to protect supplies (or at least didn’t bother recommending them), then turned to everyone should use cloth masks, then cloth masks don’t work, and then masking kids all day long at school was pointless, etc. The whole back and forth, unquestioning compliance at all costs strategy, and purposeful deception just makes everyone exhausted, sk…

http://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.co... U.S. Surgeon-General on Twitter, 2022-02-29: > Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! > They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!

Classic

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#516

Post by Mountain_Skies »

bioinformatics wrote: post #501
hayst4ck wrote: post #455

This github page is the most interesting (fairly apolitical) read on the lab leak hypothesis that I've seen to date: https://project-evidence.github.io/ After reading it, it seems most likely to me that patient 0 was a person who collected bats for the lab with insufficient safety equipment, but the article itself doesn't really present a strong conclusion.

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#517

Post by namose »

exitb wrote: post #87

What is the motivation behind research that makes viruses more suitable for humans anyway? I assume it's not strictly a military project, since there was international cooperation between countries that aren't allies. What is it we're tying to achieve?

Same reason black-hat security research exists. By developing a virus in a contained environment, you can study it, model it, potentially develop mitigations or cures.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#518

Post by namose »

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.

> There are any number of other labs around the world working on similarly dangerous research that could get released on accident.

And you don't see a problem with this?

You seem to assume the lab-leak hypothesis assumes malicious intent in creating the virus, but most people are actually concerned about negligence and/or a malicious coverup of the origin.

A definitive answer to the origin of covid could help answer the following questions:

- How much do I trust U.S. public health institutions?

- How much do I trust Chinese public health institutions?

- Should gain-of-function and other high-risk virus research be conducted? And what should the safety standards be of such research?

- Is there a problem of forced consensus/centralization in the broader scientific community?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#519

Post by kgarten »

hayst4ck wrote: post #455

This github page is the most interesting (fairly apolitical) read on the lab leak hypothesis that I've seen to date: https://project-evidence.github.io/ After reading it, it seems most likely to me that patient 0 was a person who collected bats for the lab with insufficient safety equipment, but the article itself doesn't really present a strong conclusion.

it's not really apolitical unfortunately.

"We believe in holding the Chinese government accountable for changes in regulations and poplicies that can prevent another laboratory accident. "

why not focus on international standards?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#520

Post by igouy »

credit_guy wrote: post #496
igouy wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overall, the simplest explanation… "New studies say Wuhan market is the only ‘plausible’ source of COVID-19 pandemic" https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-07-26/new-studies... “I was quite convinced of the lab leak myself until we dove into this very carefully and looked at it much closer,” Andersen said. “Actually, the data points to this particular market.”

I read your link, and except for words, I see not explanation why the market hypothesis is more likely. Just "I thought that, and now I think this". The rest of the article says that the reports were deemed by the WHO to be "inconclusive". And what else do you expect? Conclusive evidence for the lab-leak hypothesis should be hyper-ultra-uber strong, because its consequences could potentially be requests for trillions…

> because there were no documented cases of live bats or live pangolins being sold in that market.

Was selling live bats or live pangolins legal?

Post reply on HN