Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

biorxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 250 posts

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#31

Post by shadowgovt »

MockObject wrote: post #26
kelseyfrog wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My Occam's razor says that every other virus has a natural origin, why wouldnt this one too? Maybe your razor needs sharpening?

How can you prove that natural origin is the hypothesis selected by the razor in this particular case?

The point of Occam's Razor is you can't prove the things the Razor leans you to. Not in a way sufficient to remove the need to invoke the Razor. But you can say that one explanation is simpler than another (such as a pandemic virus being more closely patterned to every other pandemic in human history than to a novel mechanism that has never become a pandemic before).

I see a bright glow on the eastern horizon about 7AM and it's probably the sun coming up. It could be the first strike in a world-ending nuclear exchange. I can't prove it isn't.

... but it's probably not.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#32

Post by someuser54541 »

beiller wrote: post #29
someuser54541 wrote: post #22

Genuinely surprises me that there are people out there who think or have been persuaded the virus is of natural origin. The lab right next to the market was literally studying and experimenting with the exact same type of virus. How can a someone think that that's just a coincidence? Add that to the fact that the funding for that research lab was approved by the same guy who become the de facto thought leader on the…

I have the opposite Occam's razor thoughts. My opinion is we are not capable of developing in a lab a virus that is so transmissible and survivable in human species only. I think the complexity of the virus machinery and its interactions inside of our bodies and immune system is beyond astronomical in complexity. It's laughable to suggest that we are so intelligent as to invent a better version of the machinery that…

> My opinion is we are not capable of developing in a lab a virus that is so transmissible and survivable in human species only. I think the complexity of the virus machinery and its interactions inside of our bodies and immune system is beyond astronomical in complexity. It's laughable to suggest that we are so intelligent as to invent a better version of the machinery that is hypothesized as the very machinery responsible for creation of multi cellular life itself.

The very first synthetic virus created in 2002 and was modeled after polio, which is fairly transmissible and affects humans. That virus was made 20 years ago; synthetic biology has come a very long way since then.

Does that fact alter your opinion?

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#33

Post by MockObject »

whydid wrote: post #28
someuser54541 wrote: post #22

Genuinely surprises me that there are people out there who think or have been persuaded the virus is of natural origin. The lab right next to the market was literally studying and experimenting with the exact same type of virus. How can a someone think that that's just a coincidence? Add that to the fact that the funding for that research lab was approved by the same guy who become the de facto thought leader on the…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagan_standard Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is why people are skeptical.

Great attempts are made to prevent lab leaks, so a failure of procedure can't be considered extraordinary.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#34

Post by MockObject »

shadowgovt wrote: post #31
MockObject wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you prove that natural origin is the hypothesis selected by the razor in this particular case?

The point of Occam's Razor is you can't prove the things the Razor leans you to. Not in a way sufficient to remove the need to invoke the Razor. But you can say that one explanation is simpler than another (such as a pandemic virus being more closely patterned to every other pandemic in human history than to a novel mechanism that has never become a pandemic before). I see a bright glow on the eastern horizon about 7…

I wasn't asking for a proof of the phenomenon, but a proof that the razor points to that phenomenon.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#35

Post by iso1337 »

someuser54541 wrote: post #32
beiller wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the opposite Occam's razor thoughts. My opinion is we are not capable of developing in a lab a virus that is so transmissible and survivable in human species only. I think the complexity of the virus machinery and its interactions inside of our bodies and immune system is beyond astronomical in complexity. It's laughable to suggest that we are so intelligent as to invent a better version of the machinery that…

> My opinion is we are not capable of developing in a lab a virus that is so transmissible and survivable in human species only. I think the complexity of the virus machinery and its interactions inside of our bodies and immune system is beyond astronomical in complexity. It's laughable to suggest that we are so intelligent as to invent a better version of the machinery that is hypothesized as the very machinery resp…

There is a huge variety of viruses, just because someone wrote the equivalent of "Hello World" doesn't mean you can write a complicated CMS anytime soon.

Synthetic biology (the actual synthesis of DNA) has come a long way, we don't understand all the components yet though.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#36

Post by bee_rider »

someuser54541 wrote: post #22

Genuinely surprises me that there are people out there who think or have been persuaded the virus is of natural origin. The lab right next to the market was literally studying and experimenting with the exact same type of virus. How can a someone think that that's just a coincidence? Add that to the fact that the funding for that research lab was approved by the same guy who become the de facto thought leader on the…

> Genuinely surprises me that there are people out there who think or have been persuaded the virus is of natural origin. The lab right next to the market was literally studying and experimenting with the exact same type of virus. How can a someone think that that's just a coincidence?

It seems plausible, at least, that it leaked from the lab, in the sense that labs aren't magically impenetrable and leaks could happen.

> Add that to the fact that the funding for that research lab was approved by the same guy who become the de facto thought leader on the virus in the U.S., AND funded by the foundation of one of the most recognizable American billionaires. To put the cherry on top, even suggesting a synthetic origin resulted in bans on most social platforms!

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean. How does the fact that this guy (Fauci?) approved some funding make COVID seem more likely to have been leaked from a lab? It seems natural that somebody who's been working in government on medical topics at a high level for a long time would have approved funding on lots of things, and also likely that they'd become a figurehead in a pandemic, but I don't see any deeper links.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#37

Post by shadowgovt »

jalino23 wrote: post #13

do I understand this correctly? that the paper is saying that covid 19 is highly likely a synthetic virus?

It's claiming that there are sequences on the viral code that are unlikely to have occurred naturally, but are really convenient for slicing the genetic sequence in a lab context.

Sort of like if you shaved the fur on a hyena and discovered a "THIS END UP" tattoo on its skin.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#38

Post by shikshake »

fdgsdfogijq wrote: post #17

True story, in early January of 2020, on an academic virology forum, which I wont link, it was known the virus was synthetic. Before the story hit the mainstream media, professors were sharing data about the virus fingerprint. There were concerns about the integrity of the data shared by the Chinese. One specific comment I will never forget by a Harvard professor when discussing the implications: "Should we turn on t…

> which I wont link

Why not? HN promotes logical evidence-backed discussion. The least you can do is link the forum.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#39

Post by danbtl »

callesgg wrote: post #15

I Honestly thought it was common belief that corona come from that lab in china. But now after reading this, I searched a bit and read up on it and I guess it is still a somewhat honest debate on the topic. Even if it was lab made, it would be sort of stupid to dig in to it, due to the political nature of the matter. What happened happened, most likely the release would have been accidental, so why play blame games.

> why play blame games

Because of the question of liability: If it was lab made and accidentally released, was it due to recklessness or criminal negligence? Is someone guilty of involuntary mass-manslaughter? Or if this was state-sponsored research, could they be found liable for the damage caused?

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#40

Post by nl »

Dig1t wrote: post #24
m0llusk wrote: post #18

There are at least a couple of suspicious points in this study: First and foremost the central claim is that 5 potential restriction binding sites versus 2 means that SARS-CoV2 is non natural. That does not necessarily follow. Just as SARS-CoV2 is unusually infectious and damaging to humans it could just happen to have an additional 3 restriction binding sites. So there is nothing inconsistent with natural selection…

I really don't see how saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin is "a dangerous level of sloppiness".

Well considering that's not what the OP said at all I guess it's ok you don't see that.
Post reply on HN