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

551–560 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#551

Post by AshamedCaptain »

kcplate wrote: post #508
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Knowing what caused this should be important, so it doesn't happen again I really don't see that. If it is really true that both options are indistinguishably plausible, then what do you in response to this one event is absolutely meaningless. The next event could as likely come from "the other source", or from a new entirely one you don't even know about. Your only reasonable option _in any case_ is to just streng…

> both options are indistinguishably plausible, then what do you in response to this one event is absolutely meaningless. How is it “absolutely meaningless” if you can narrow the chance of happening of the one you have control over? Is a global pandemic is a rare occurrence already don’t you make it more rare if you mitigate the risk of one of the possible sources?

What is absolutely meaningless is _which_ was the cause of this one particular event, since both clauses are almost equally plausible. I am obviously not claiming that the best course of action is not to mitigate anything; I am claiming that the best course of action is the same irregardless of the particular cause of this one event.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#552

Post by goblin89 »

Garlef wrote: post #283
goblin89 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy is harmful to the topic under discussion: its key assumptions (such as comparing the governments of US and China to my family in terms of power and influence) render it inapplicable. > It appears to be reasonable to assign the "your mother is a [insert derogatory term]" hypothesis a higher prior, in Bayesian terms, just based on the many familiy members whose image/status would it directly or indirectly…

> comparing the governments of US and China to my family Hi there. My intention was not to make this about your literal family. The "your" was intended to refer to a general addressee. Sry for that.

I was not offended. I concede to arguments raised by other repliers regarding my misuse (or at least very unorthodox use) of the term “prior”, but still find an objection based on your analogy ill-founded. Your analogy more or less supports my point (which I, to be fair, expressed badly).

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#553

Post by goatcode »

tedivm wrote: post #460
goatcode wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In nature, it makes no sense for a virus to be both highly transmissible and highly deadly. Any such virus would cease to exist after having run amok in such a way in its hosts. Therefore, any extremely deadly virus should be looked at with similarly extreme criticism, especially if / when it adapts and becomes a better behaving parasite.

Nature, and evolution, don't follow motive based logic. Random mutations that are temporarily beneficial but are detrimental to the long term do happen. To put it another way, a cell mutates based off of random chance. It doesn't have desires. We only have to go back as far as 1918 to see an example of a virus that could not have been engineered and was highly transmissible and highly deadly. As you say, in the long…

> temporarily beneficial

This was the crux of my point.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#554

Post by fireflash38 »

aljungberg wrote: post #397
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…

It’s fine to make mistakes, especially in a fluid, developing situation. And it is precisely therefore we shouldn’t dress up our hypothesises as fact. The actors here presented mask dictates as gospel. They were either wrong when anti-mask or wrong when pro-mask, but somehow conveyed absolute confidence in both cases. This is very harmful for the public discourse and for the reputation of the authorities during a tim…

The experts did NOT state it as fact. Pretty much ever. They couched it in terms as best they knew. If you want to argue that people consuming that and spreading that info put it in bad terms, you can, but I think that's a poor argument in general.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#555

Post by masswerk »

haihaibye wrote: post #545
masswerk wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hum, there are a few things promoters of the lab theory haven't accounted for: meanwhile, strains that are closer related to the wild type have been found in Laos and Vietnam and the Wuhan lab didn't sample there; the (in)famous Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market is actually quite a distance from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (it's about half an hour by car and there's a river in between) and there have been no traces…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN312670.1 Bat sample from Laos submitted by Wuhan institute of virology in 2019

But this is neither similar to SARS-CoV-2 nor to BANAL-236 or BANAL-52 (the close relatives found in Laos).

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#556

Post by garren »

robomartin wrote: post #437
garren wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d be curious to get a better understanding of the “solar energy reali[sm]” that you mentioned. It sounds like you’re suggesting that solar is less practical or efficient than we’ve been led to believe. I’ve got at least 3 neighbors by me with arrays that effectively eliminate their monthly home energy costs, that seems pretty great. Is that not a realistic expectation for most people with the time/money to invest i…

A few things. At the home level, I would ask if you have actually spoken to these neighbors and learned if they have significant monthly costs electricity costs. Most of my neighbors still spend in the order of $200 to $300 per month after solar installation. There are many reasons for this. I bought my system and did all the work myself. Not only is my system about twice the size of anything around me (Google satell…

There’s a lot here to digest - thank you for your response. Regarding solar, I’ve been looking into it and you’ve given me a bit to consider. I now have a better appreciation for your fantasy vs. reality statement.

I checked your site, I didn’t see anything on this topic (only briefly glanced). This comment by itself would make a great blog post.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#557

Post by aljungberg »

fireflash38 wrote: post #554
aljungberg wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s fine to make mistakes, especially in a fluid, developing situation. And it is precisely therefore we shouldn’t dress up our hypothesises as fact. The actors here presented mask dictates as gospel. They were either wrong when anti-mask or wrong when pro-mask, but somehow conveyed absolute confidence in both cases. This is very harmful for the public discourse and for the reputation of the authorities during a tim…

The experts did NOT state it as fact. Pretty much ever. They couched it in terms as best they knew. If you want to argue that people consuming that and spreading that info put it in bad terms, you can, but I think that's a poor argument in general.

I disagree that people were spreading it in bad terms, if by that you mean the general public. Just look at what the officials actually said. Here’s March 2020:

> “You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider,” Surgeon General Jerome Adams said.

England’s chief medical officer, same month:

> Prof Whitty said: “In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that.”

Dr Fauci:

> “Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks,” said Dr. Anthony Fauci, an immunologist and a public face of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, on CBS’ “60 Minutes” earlier this month. He, like the others, suggested that masks could put users at risk by causing them to touch their face more often.

The WHO advised against it (to your point they did couch their language so much that it wasn’t even clear what they were really advising [1]).

And these are just the ones I could find quickly right now. From memory, the message was even stronger than this and even proliferated in this very forum. There was a time when you kind of had to duck and speak quietly if you wanted to bring up the idea that maybe this anti-mask thing wasn’t settled fact.

1: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/03/11/whos-confusing-guidance...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#558

Post by boltzmann-brain »

kgarten wrote: post #519
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?

I think you're confusing justice for politics.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#559

Post by boltzmann-brain »

rasz wrote: post #503
creato wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how this argument has any traction at all. My understanding is we had the COVID vaccines formulated within weeks of the initial outbreak. The problem is, it then took many months of large scale testing, and then scaling production to make the vaccine readily available. In the meantime, the virus spread across the globe and mutated into forms that the vaccine isn't very effective against. Treatments…

Months, and it didnt happen at WIV who was doing gof research thus should be the first one with best results according to the above theory. Quite opposite happened, China with all the power of WIV behind it was last with the vaccine whose efficiency is highly debated but visibly shaky.

That's a clear condemnation of the defense for GoF practices that basically goes "make in lab first, so we can prepare".

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#560

Post by haswell »

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…

> 95% effective at preventing covid [sic]

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID are not the same thing. All of the main media outlets reporting on this were pretty clear that 95% was prevention of severe symptoms and death.

> It still says the indication is to prevent covid, not reduce symptoms

Again, we need to focus on SARS-CoV-2 vs. COVID here. Getting "COVID" implies you A) were exposed to the virus and it entered your body and B) it is causing symptoms. Preventing COVID is not synonymous with preventing infection by SARS-CoV-2.

I think this has been a particularly confusing point for most because the traditional battery of vaccines we all get as kids generally do prevent the actual disease, and that has led to much misinterpretation as far as I can tell.

Post reply on HN