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

191–200 of 250 posts

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

#191

Post by rumpelstinkin »

wnkrshm wrote: post #179
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know that I believe that the answer to which one happened in the case of covid-19, is all that important It is when literally this week a version with an 80% kill rate but with the spread of the most transmissible was made in a lab for no good reason. How many would die if that leaked out and the only reason it’s been made is just so some academic can get their name in a paper and earn some grant presumably…

These kinds of experiments are going to be done either way - for example gain-of-function research on animal smallpox (which usually doesn't kill and can't infect humans) to make it lethal. Experts on the matter (I read a book recounting smallpox research, not a domain expert myself [0]) were concerned more about the publishing of that research than about the research being done, since proliferation is deemed very ea…

it can't be that easy, there's plenty of groups that would routinely use something like that for terrorism etc. It hasn't happened yet, so it must be more difficult than it looks?

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

#192

Post by nl »

Dig1t wrote: post #62
nl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>These second and third criticisms are not direct against the evidence and logic presented, but show a dangerous level of sloppiness in the research OP _literally_ said that.

Neither the "second [or] third criticisms" were "saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin".

Just because "show a dangerous level of sloppiness in the research" was used in both sentences does not mean they are saying the same thing at all.

The OP's second and third criticisms were:

"the evidence for the wet market origin is trivialized."

and

"Thirdly, this paper emphasizes the strong impact of the COVID pandemic and asserts that understanding the origins of the virus would necessarily aid in preventing future pandemics. This does not clearly follow."

While "saying that the pandemic was a bad thing and that there is value in understanding its origin" might approach a summary of the third criticism it doesn't address the second - more serious - criticism at all.

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

#194

Post by wnkrshm »

rumpelstinkin wrote: post #191
wnkrshm wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These kinds of experiments are going to be done either way - for example gain-of-function research on animal smallpox (which usually doesn't kill and can't infect humans) to make it lethal. Experts on the matter (I read a book recounting smallpox research, not a domain expert myself [0]) were concerned more about the publishing of that research than about the research being done, since proliferation is deemed very ea…

it can't be that easy, there's plenty of groups that would routinely use something like that for terrorism etc. It hasn't happened yet, so it must be more difficult than it looks?

I'm only citing experts on the matter (to paraphrase a quote: "all that is needed is access to a modern university's biology lab") but I think the reason we're not seeing attacks like that is that you cannot control a bioweapon - and everyone who is able to make one knows that.

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

#195

Post by VagueMag »

rleigh wrote: post #158
VagueMag wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about the field of above-board academic research. Academics didn't create SARS-CoV-2 and cover up their own role in it.

It is not possible to be certain of this. You can't state that as an incontrovertible fact. Is it beyond reasonable doubt that a virus created as part of a gain-of-function research programme escaped? We simply don't know definitively one way or the other, and it's rather unscientific to make blanket statements about these things one way or the other in the absence of evidence to validate the claim. (I'm an immunolog…

No post body was provided.

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

#196

Post by z7 »

astrange wrote: post #84
guelo wrote: post #66

I've seen several papers with the opposite conclusion. Why do we only see the lab leak hypothesis front paged on HN?

Cynical engineers are required to believe in it because it's 1. "the opposite of the current thing" 2. contains more rationality than the other leading hypothesis (i.e. more of what happened was planned, rather than an accident) 3. and lets them blame a person rather than a bat. An ironically fitting end for them would be that it is true, they get all similar research banned, and then the next virus is zoonotic and n…

Unfalsifiable speculation about the psychological motives of people proposing a hypothesis, a retribution fantasy on the "fitting end" for such cynical deviants, plus an inversion of what side of the investigation was subjected to censorship? Nice combo.

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

#197

Post by noman2000 »

emsign wrote: post #152
xupybd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Thirdly, this paper emphasizes the strong impact of the COVID pandemic and asserts that understanding the origins of the virus would necessarily aid in preventing future pandemics. This does not clearly follow. Especially if the virus had natural selection origins there is no clear and obvious way of systematically reducing risk. Simply living or traveling where host populations like bats live could be enough to gen…

People could just try and stop eating them first instead, that's my humble idea.

[dead]

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

#198

Post by raxxorraxor »

rossdavidh wrote: post #129

The opening line: "To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident." Is that true? I mean I understand why people would be curious, but does it really matter, in terms of what we need to do? We know that viruses _can_ spillover from animals to people, and we know that viruses in a laboratory setting…

If it is true that it made its rounds in a lab, we might want to consider putting a moratorium on such research out of security concerns. Or at least put such labs under more scrutiny. Also in regard to funding and people involved, have some be responsible for the safety.

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

#199

Post by BlueTemplar »

gary_0 wrote: post #154
rossdavidh wrote: post #129

The opening line: "To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident." Is that true? I mean I understand why people would be curious, but does it really matter, in terms of what we need to do? We know that viruses _can_ spillover from animals to people, and we know that viruses in a laboratory setting…

Good point. Arguing about who or what to point the finger at for SARS-CoV-2 seems more like politics than epidemiology. The evidence of a laboratory source is unclear enough, and the chance of a natural source plausible enough, that I'm not sure how the cost/benefit is supposed to work out here. Not to mention if your goal is just to point out the ethical lapses of the Chinese government, you don't really need any ex…

Epidemiology doesn't work without taking into account politics.

You can't have go unpunished specialists conspiring (or at best, just unconsciously covering their ass) when they're the ones that are supposed to be on the front lines preventing and fighting epidemics !

P.S.: Wow, I just remembered... this lampooning hits quite differently now !

https://youtu.be/9WfZuNceFDM?t=504

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

#200

Post by divided »

arisAlexis wrote: post #183
divided wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact! There are just 9,110 named virus species as of 2021. But there are estimates that mammals and birds may have as many as 1.7 million undiscovered viruses. An older source says there were ~200 some known viruses that could infect humans as of 2013. They estimate there are 800k unknown ones which could infect us. Basically every time they look for viruses, they find new ones.

How many bat coronaviruses existed in the vicinity of the Wuhan market, including the specimens from the laboratory ? How many bats were freely roaming in the neighborhood? That's a much better probability analysis, not a flu virus in Antarctica

Right, what I’m saying is we know The bats don’t need to be at all near the market, the theory is an intermediate host was in the market. A bat could infect the host population days prior or years prior. A long potential span of time.

It might be illustrative to look at MERS. They found camel populations >3,000 miles away from the outbreak with antibodies to MERS. One potential explanation is the virus doesn’t sicken camels and had been spreading in their population for a long time prior to transmission to humans.

Or we look to SARS. They did not find SARS in a bat population, but after 5 years of searching they did find a cave where all the building blocks existed. It was a couple provinces away from the outbreak. >500 miles.

So despite your beliefs, how many bats freely roaming the neighborhood may not actually be a much better probability analysis than flu viruses in Antarctica. /s

Post reply on HN