Live data from Hacker News

The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

science.org

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#41
While the provenance of GISAID is sounding murky indeed, (and in that regard this Science Magazine article certainly adds value) anyone following the origins debate on Twitter would see this article (especially its timing & authorship) as just another volley in the reputation war between a small subset of vocal virologists vs. anyone with data / evidence / analyses running counter to their narrative.

Article co-author Jon Cohen comes in with his own murky background in the origins debate (all but outing a whistleblower to Holmes and Andersen in 2020: “Here's what one person who claims to have inside knowledge is saying behind your backs”), as does quoted virologist Marion Koopmans (of the long-since panned WHO-convened origins study trip fame) and evolutionary biologist Kristian G Andersen's group (KGA was lead author of the now overtly infamous Proximal Origins paper in Nature Medicine).

As the article opens with, GISAID restricted access to French CNRS researcher Florence Debarre after publicizing following downloading the raccoon dog sample + SC2 sample data from GISAID that was uploaded by the Gao team of researchers. (Gao, former director of China CDC, asserts that humans carried the virus into the market, not the other way around). Kamil was very vocal on Twitter about the whole kerfuffle.

Getting cut off from such an international database popular with so many scientists was seen as a major reputational slap on the wrist to such an outspoken origins researcher as Debarre. So this article simply serves to take GISAID down a few pegs in its own right (a diminution it certainly sounds like it has earned) mitigating the reputational impact to Debarre.

But bigger picture, the piece is just the latest salvo in the schoolyard dustup that is vocal virologists (and their scribes) jockeying to maintain position. So for all of the status these folks enjoyed in 2020, (when tbe rest of us fearfully turned to any expert for pandemic context with little regard for possible CoI's) it is finally their banal human nature on display that I find utterly disappointing.

(Apologies for any typos, am on mobile.)

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#42

While the provenance of GISAID is sounding murky indeed, (and in that regard this Science Magazine article certainly adds value) anyone following the origins debate on Twitter would see this article (especially its timing & authorship) as just another volley in the reputation war between a small subset of vocal virologists vs. anyone with data / evidence / analyses running counter to their narrative. Article co-autho…

While I see the irony in asking to avoid ad hominem attacks in response to an article that itself is pretty much a large ad hominem attack, do you believe there’s any facts mentioned in there to be suspect? Even the facts in one paragraph of the article would be enough to torpedo a PhD application leave alone the apparently sole arbiter of all viral sequences in the planet.

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Smart people are no more resistant to it than anyone else" Absolute statements are very rarely correct.

It's a statistical statement, so it's very easy for it to be correct. A subgroup is either more X, less X, the same X to the limits of testing, or has too complicated a relation with X to fit into the above. The only "absolute" aspects are things like the median and deviation. No positions are being pushed to the extreme. Even better, "no more" covers both "less" and "same", so it's even easier for a statement like t…

I agree with your main point.

Is the term "smart people" sufficiently vague that it would need refinement for the level of certainty you're describing?

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#44

While the provenance of GISAID is sounding murky indeed, (and in that regard this Science Magazine article certainly adds value) anyone following the origins debate on Twitter would see this article (especially its timing & authorship) as just another volley in the reputation war between a small subset of vocal virologists vs. anyone with data / evidence / analyses running counter to their narrative. Article co-autho…

While I see the irony in asking to avoid ad hominem attacks in response to an article that itself is pretty much a large ad hominem attack, do you believe there’s any facts mentioned in there to be suspect? Even the facts in one paragraph of the article would be enough to torpedo a PhD application leave alone the apparently sole arbiter of all viral sequences in the planet.

No I have no reason to suspect facts mentioned - like I said I think the article probably adds value in shedding light on a popular database; but that's not my point; the contributors to the article demonstrate the usual coordination & incentives we've come to expect from a small handful of vocal virologists and those who write for them.

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a statistical statement, so it's very easy for it to be correct. A subgroup is either more X, less X, the same X to the limits of testing, or has too complicated a relation with X to fit into the above. The only "absolute" aspects are things like the median and deviation. No positions are being pushed to the extreme. Even better, "no more" covers both "less" and "same", so it's even easier for a statement like t…

I agree with your main point. Is the term "smart people" sufficiently vague that it would need refinement for the level of certainty you're describing?

I don't feel like it does. The more vague you make a category, the easier it is to say it's the same as the general population.

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Smart people are no more resistant to it than anyone else" Absolute statements are very rarely correct.

It's a statistical statement, so it's very easy for it to be correct. A subgroup is either more X, less X, the same X to the limits of testing, or has too complicated a relation with X to fit into the above. The only "absolute" aspects are things like the median and deviation. No positions are being pushed to the extreme. Even better, "no more" covers both "less" and "same", so it's even easier for a statement like t…

This is how I interpret the statement: "Smart people are no more resistant to it than anyone else". 'it' = being conned. 'anyone' does include the dumbest people in the world, so, "Smart people are no more resistant to being conned than the dumbest people in the world" which is enough in my opinion to falsify the absolute statement.

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a statistical statement, so it's very easy for it to be correct. A subgroup is either more X, less X, the same X to the limits of testing, or has too complicated a relation with X to fit into the above. The only "absolute" aspects are things like the median and deviation. No positions are being pushed to the extreme. Even better, "no more" covers both "less" and "same", so it's even easier for a statement like t…

This is how I interpret the statement: "Smart people are no more resistant to it than anyone else". 'it' = being conned. 'anyone' does include the dumbest people in the world, so, "Smart people are no more resistant to being conned than the dumbest people in the world" which is enough in my opinion to falsify the absolute statement.

I understand that interpretation but I think "anyone else" is supposed to stand in for an everyman, not the most connable person you can find.

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#48
post #18
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember a conversation with my (now) Ex-wife when we started playing an MMO together regarding her nickname; They would use a name that was vaguely ambiguous on gender but was far more likely to be considered Male than female, and it was for similar-ish reasons. They would still get some harassers occasionally (usually someone who found out they were female in guild chat... which was thankfully dealt with swiftly…

[flagged]

You can't do this here. As you've been posting quite a few flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how I interpret the statement: "Smart people are no more resistant to it than anyone else". 'it' = being conned. 'anyone' does include the dumbest people in the world, so, "Smart people are no more resistant to being conned than the dumbest people in the world" which is enough in my opinion to falsify the absolute statement.

I understand that interpretation but I think "anyone else" is supposed to stand in for an everyman, not the most connable person you can find.

Thank you for your explanation.

Re: The “invented persona” behind the GISAID viral sequence database

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a statistical statement, so it's very easy for it to be correct. A subgroup is either more X, less X, the same X to the limits of testing, or has too complicated a relation with X to fit into the above. The only "absolute" aspects are things like the median and deviation. No positions are being pushed to the extreme. Even better, "no more" covers both "less" and "same", so it's even easier for a statement like t…

This is how I interpret the statement: "Smart people are no more resistant to it than anyone else". 'it' = being conned. 'anyone' does include the dumbest people in the world, so, "Smart people are no more resistant to being conned than the dumbest people in the world" which is enough in my opinion to falsify the absolute statement.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN