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

Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#301

Post by theRealMe »

lvl102 wrote: post #261
ThePhantom wrote: post #205

The lab leak hypothesis makes the most sense. The lab in Wuhan which researches coronaviruses conducts experiences on animals, including bats. Like other labs, there are dedicated personnel for hydrating and feeding the experimental animals. Notably, there are "wet markets" in Wuhan where live animals are sold, including bats, which harbor coronaviruses. Someone who is working in the facility in charge of maintenance…

Deleted

It’s so fascinating to me to see someone formulate a hypothesis based on nothing “I think they did[purposely leak a global pandemic-causing virus]”, and then immediately turn around and relish in China’s failure at the thing you claimed they did. Like, do I do this too, and I’m just not aware of it?

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#302

Post by baja_blast »

ashwagary wrote: post #180
alchemist1e9 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also article mentions FBI has “moderate” confidence it was lab leak. I find that very interesting given it wouldn’t be so much based on scientific analysis but some intelligence collection the FBI has.

If you repeat a lie often enough, even the at first reluctant will start to believe it. That's how the propaganda machine typically works. The more these claims based on minimal new evidence are repeated, the more it seems the virus may have potentially been released by nefarious actors as an attack on the population. It's not implausable for an entity with knowledge and access to a virus being studied, to release a…

While I won't discount the possibility that the outbreak could be a nefarious plot to plant a virus.I feel the US's response to the pandemic and the massive mistakes made make it less likely. The most likely would be just an accident where a researcher unknowingly got infected while conducting research in a BSL2 lab where they were testing wild SARS like viruses and inserting FCS to gauge the viruses potential threat level

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#303

Post by dekhn »

bee_rider wrote: post #196
denotational wrote: post #24

Without meaning to take a position either way, as a non-American, why does the Energy Department have a position on this? I’m aware that the Energy Department has sone degree of responsibility for the US nuclear arsenal, but even taking that into account, it seems out of scope.

Actually as a side question, why does the reporting on this story in particular use the somewhat unusual phrase “US Energy Department?” It is the Department of Energy, right? I seems like a little nitpick, but there are lots of agencies in the US, sometimes there’s a little nobody agency with a name similar to a big deal one… as a style thing, reporters should stick to the common names for big agencies, so we can be…

I wondered if WSJ must have a style guide that tells their writers to use this construction but there seems to be a mix of both (Energy Department and Department of Energy). Yes, DoE is the correct name, but I see ED used commonly in journalism.

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#304

Post by ss108 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #269
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #151

There's a lot of bad headline-writing on this subject today. Here's the NYT's headline: Lab Leak Most Likely Caused Pandemic, Energy Dept. Says And then the sub-head (or dek, if you want to sound like you're in the know): The conclusion, which was made with “low confidence,” came as America’s intelligence agencies remained divided over the origins of the coronavirus. So we have a conclusion: 'lab leak most likely cau…

Good luck getting 95% of the American populace to understand any of that nuance. After seeing lots of Twitter threads about Nate Silver, condemning his lack of "certainty" in his predictions ("It's such a cop out! Since he never says yes or no one way or the other he always has an out when he's wrong!"), I'm even more convinced not just that people don't understand statistics, but they willfully don't want to.

Yeah. In 2016 when people were like "hurr durr experts suck, they predicted Hillary would win and she lost", it was exasperating. If a model predicted an outcome with 60-70% certainty, and the less likely scenario happens, model wasn't necessarily bad. That'd be true even if it was a 90/10 split.

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#305

Post by bmer »

nostromo wrote: post #260

The timing of this is interesting, given that China is now considering giving weapons to Russia for use in Ukraine. It seemed that from 2020 until recently, the intelligence community was trying to lower tensions with China. That's shifted now with China's increasing support Russia's war in Ukraine and China's increasing pressure in Taiwan. It's now in the US's interests to try and isolate China geopolitically. So, w…

I don't think it's against US interests for China to sell weapons to Russia.

Post-WW2, the traditional way in which powerful nation states test their conventional (non-nuclear) capabilities has been through proxy warfare. The US would probably love it if China sold some of their weapons to Russia, so that US/NATO equipment can be tested against it. Conversely, the Chinese would probably not mind testing their "on paper" capabilities "in the field". The caveat here being that the US can probably upgrade/adapt to whatever is learned about Chinese equipment.

In other words, there is no substitute for actual operational experience, and both sides benefit from selling weapons to the various parties in Ukraine, in order to get said experience.

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#306

Post by glofish »

dalemyers wrote: post #245
BurningFrog wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd still say the Iraq War was most costly and fatal mistake in the 21st Century. Hard to compare, admittedly.

Based on what exactly? According to Wikipedia, the Iraq War produced a total death count of 25,071 and a total wounded count of 117,961. Also according to Wikipedia COVID-19 has produced a death count of 6,868,964 and an infection count of 674,809,997. I'm all for complaining about US tactics, but it's 100% incorrect to try and claim that the Iraq War was "worse" than COVID-19.

When it comes to the Iraq War, according to the Wikipedia, and let me quote it

> "An estimated 151,000 to 1,033,000 Iraqis died in the first three to five years of conflict."

Then that famous video of "Madeleine Albright Saying Iraqi Kids' Deaths 'Worth It'" talked about half million children.

https://www.newsweek.com/watch-madeleine-albright-saying-ira...

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#307

Post by jcadam »

unicornmama wrote: post #215
goolulusaurs wrote: post #192

IMO, it seems obvious from the behavior of China's government that they know it is a lab leak. If it wasn't a lab leak, then presumably there is an animal reservoir of the virus somewhere in China, but as far as I know they haven't claimed to have found it. But if there is an animal reservoir of the virus in China, then how could the Chinese government ever expect a lockdown to work? A lockdown on travel would only r…

Lockdowns serve a purpose: to slow the spread of the virus.

[flagged]

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#308

Post by rocketbop »

lvl102 wrote: post #261
ThePhantom wrote: post #205

The lab leak hypothesis makes the most sense. The lab in Wuhan which researches coronaviruses conducts experiences on animals, including bats. Like other labs, there are dedicated personnel for hydrating and feeding the experimental animals. Notably, there are "wet markets" in Wuhan where live animals are sold, including bats, which harbor coronaviruses. Someone who is working in the facility in charge of maintenance…

Deleted

> I think they did thinking the West wouldn’t have developed a vaccine so fast.

I’m curious. What motivation for purposefully leaking such a virus would ‘they’ have?

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#309

Post by bigfudge »

ashwagary wrote: post #180
alchemist1e9 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also article mentions FBI has “moderate” confidence it was lab leak. I find that very interesting given it wouldn’t be so much based on scientific analysis but some intelligence collection the FBI has.

If you repeat a lie often enough, even the at first reluctant will start to believe it. That's how the propaganda machine typically works. The more these claims based on minimal new evidence are repeated, the more it seems the virus may have potentially been released by nefarious actors as an attack on the population. It's not implausable for an entity with knowledge and access to a virus being studied, to release a…

I'm wary of engaging, but this just makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain and actually make explicit some of the implied connections.

Previously the 'big lie' was that it was not from a lab. Now that it's assessed to be likely from a lab the new lie is the contention that it was done deliberately? Whose propaganda machine is at work here anyway? The Chinese govt or the US one? Or are they in cahoots now?

Re: Lab leak most likely origin of Covid-19 pandemic, U.S. agency now says

#310

Post by nradov »

ss108 wrote: post #304
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck getting 95% of the American populace to understand any of that nuance. After seeing lots of Twitter threads about Nate Silver, condemning his lack of "certainty" in his predictions ("It's such a cop out! Since he never says yes or no one way or the other he always has an out when he's wrong!"), I'm even more convinced not just that people don't understand statistics, but they willfully don't want to.

Yeah. In 2016 when people were like "hurr durr experts suck, they predicted Hillary would win and she lost", it was exasperating. If a model predicted an outcome with 60-70% certainty, and the less likely scenario happens, model wasn't necessarily bad. That'd be true even if it was a 90/10 split.

The model wasn't bad, just useless.
Post reply on HN