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

Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

thetimes.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#831

Post by baja_blast »

pfisherman wrote: post #589
015UUZn8aEvW wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you overstate how much the lab leak and the bioweapon stories were being conflated. I recall that most people were able to distinguish between them, and that the most prominent figures raising red flags about a potential leak weren't talking about bioweapons. In any case, the most alarming aspect of the lab leak hypothesis is that gain-of-function research is STILL being done, and that the same thing could ha…

> the most alarming aspect of the lab leak hypothesis is that gain-of-function research is STILL being done, and that the same thing could happen AGAIN. This right here is an example of why we can’t have reasoned discussion around the topic. You can explain one of the many reasons why gain of function research is necessary: anticipating next year’s version of the flu, designing drugs and vaccines such that resistance…

> You can explain one of the many reasons why gain of function research is necessary: anticipating next year’s version of the flu, designing drugs and vaccines such that resistance mutations reduce evolutionary fitness

A few problems with this. First modifying wild animal viruses to be infectious towards humans is different than modifying human viruses to model potential mutations. Modifying animal viruses to be infectious towards humans has done nothing but cause risks. Despite this research being conducted for almost a decade it has yet to predict or prevent any pandemic and probably started this one.

Additionally the idea that modifying animal viruses to easily transmit towards humans will allow us to develop vaccines is absurd. You can't test a vaccine that is not circulating in humans, so trails can not start until the pandemic has already started.

So yes, there should be moratorium on research that modifies infectious diseases! The public has a right to consent on whether such research is worth the risks.

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#832

Post by baja_blast »

oneshtein wrote: post #685
stormfather wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the “lab leak” theory tends to be people pushing an unsubstantiated theory to either For me it's just common sense. It probably came from the coronavirus lab with a bad safety record it popped up next to. Duh. And I "push" it because I value the truth and want to live in a rational society where the truth isn't gamed for emotional or political reasons. And that's probably the same for most of us.

There is significant delay between lab leak in mid-September-mid-October 2019 and start of epidemic in December in Wuhan. Can such contagious virus as SARS-CoV-2 cross the distance between lab in Wuhan and wet market in Wuhan in few days? Of course. In few months? No way.

Yes, covid was in the US months before we bothered to check and count cases. There were rumors of a virus spreading months before it was officially acknowledged

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#833

Post by baja_blast »

pfisherman wrote: post #667
bitemaja wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think real risk is testing these chimera viruses on mice with humanized cells. Letting viruses evolve in-vivo is the problem especially when they are so viral. There needs to be limitations on what R is allowed to be produced in-vivo, even more so because calculating the risk of virality of the outbreak is trivial if in-vitro studies are done.

Chimera virus. You mean like a spike protein expressing VSV? Do you think that (pseudo virus) requires a higher or lower BSL certification to work with than bonafide Coronavirus? Why? And why are you worried about humanized mice and not human cell lines like HEK or CALU? Why not primary cells or organoids? Somewhere the “Outbreak” monkey is crying. I admit that I am being a bit snarky and passive aggressive here; but…

A classically trained pianist's profession does not carry the risk of killing millions of people! There is zero proof outside of circumstantial conjecture that SARS2 has a natural origin. Up to 20 million people have died due to an animal virus modified to be highly infectious towards humans and you expect everyone to just take your word for it?

I mean it sucks if it hurts your career or impacts your profession, but highly dangerous work needs to be reviewed and banned if need be!

Humanity > Your personal career

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#834

Post by hospitalJail »

Eisenstein wrote: post #820
hospitalJail wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think the Democrats ignored scientists?

Democrats are not some monolithic entity. A 'democrat' is basically someone in the US who votes who has empathy for others and/or isn't in favor of Christian religious doctrine as a basis for legislating morality and/or thinks that making it super easy for anyone to buy a gun makes gun violence exponentially more likely. I really doubt they all coordinated to destroy the livelihood of millions of American's to make t…

So you do think that most Democrats ignored scientists/science?

I know you've been asked this question 3 or 4 times now, and ignored it each time, but I thought maybe you'd answer it this time.

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#835

Post by bena »

George83728 wrote: post #826
bena wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you said it, it must be true and we must accept these anecdotes as the complete truth and you as the best source of it.

Well since you've responded sarcastically, it must be debunked.

There's nothing to debunk. That's the entire point. He's trying to prop up his claims with more claims. If we cannot determine the veracity of his anecdotes, they are of no use to us in determining the validity of his conclusions.

His entire response could be boiled down to "Trust me, bro".

I get the feeling he knows he cannot defend his position based on either commonly known information or on reasoning about the situation. So he has to purport to have special information that most don't. And that special information, which you cannot have, is enough to turn everything around. But he also won't give you enough information to independently verify. He won't tell you which campaigns he did these things for, which politicians he worked for. But they were top men. Top. Men.

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#836

Post by binx_ »

samspenc wrote: post #305
ricksunny wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chief among key new assertions the parent article makes, https://twitter.com/BlockedVirology/status/16676623250907463... • WIV added FCS's to coronavirus(es?) exactly as described in DEFUSE, according to a US lab collaborator. • Zhou Yusen "fell" off the roof of the WIV in May 2020 • WIV was working on a 'closer [than published] unpublished variant' • Of all caves/mines, only scholarly attempts to access the Mojiang…

> Zhou Yusen "fell" off the roof of the WIV in May 2020 I mean, this is a pretty significant and concerning new finding right? Someone associated with the lab researching COVID early on just mysteriously disappearing in China?

specifically the person working on a possible vaccine at the same time as these GoF experiments, very interesting indeed.

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#837

Post by spookthesunset »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #652
gregwebs wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chris Martenson did a lot of this as it was ongoing- of course his YouTube videos got flagged. As another commenter mentioned Dazik had a big role- he lead the delegation that went to China to investigate the origin even though he had an obvious conflict of interest. 60 minutes interviewed him without digging into the conflict of interest. There are now public emails between Fauci and others coordinating the NIH posi…

[flagged]

> goose stepping along to lead the largest propaganda and brainwashing effort in our lifetimes.

It's crazy really. I wonder how many decades will have to go by before it becomes okay to acknowledge what a major fuckup the response to covid was. Currently, there is way too many people, at least on forums like this, that haven't woken up to how badly mislead they were.

Pure hysteria, politics and poorly interpreted data all bundled into one package. Shit was crazy.

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#838

Post by spookthesunset »

ahartmetz wrote: post #543
realjhol wrote: post #517

It's going to take a long time before the mainstream is ready to think critically about the COVID narratives, but it's good to see first steps toward the recovery of rationality. But there's still a lot to cover: - Lockdowns did little to prevent the spread of COVID and lead to increased deaths by other causes, egregious violation of people's fundamental rights, massively destruction of the economy, and many people's…

Your positions, if these are all yours, are quite maximalist in one direction, and in some cases I have read pretty credible studies that contradict you. So, you may not get your Iraq moment.

> I have read pretty credible studies that contradict you.

Studies cannot show if something was the right course of action. This isn't something that can be accounted for by some peer-reviewed research paper.

The fact of the matter is, the response to covid was a massive disaster that did far more harm than good. And that is an absolute fact and one that will take a long time for people to swallow. It's hard to realize you literally wasted several years of your life for absolutely nothing at all.

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#839

Post by [deleted] »

whimsicalism wrote: post #814
ra1231963 wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is exactly the attitude you are still exhibiting that was the problem. “We’re in a crisis, no time to ask questions. Fall in line or you’re a far right conspiracy theorist/idiot.”

It is a legitimate opinion and not censorious that if you are going and telling people to take ivermectin for covid you are legitimately harming people. Having that attitude is not "a problem", having opinions on dumb stuff people say is not censorious. This new interpretation that freedom of speech means freedom from having people criticize you is novel.

[deleted]

Re: Inside the Wuhan lab weeks before Covid

#840

Post by boston_clone »

spookthesunset wrote: post #804
boston_clone wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A good decision-maker should take input from everybody who will be impacted. You’re right; I’m really glad I polled thousands of fellow employees before forcing multifactor auth, or that time I chatted with a sysadmin to make sure they really did mean to open RDP on a public server before taking it offline. Sarcasm aside, in a time of a medical emergency, it is the job of medical professionals to make decisions, be…

> Sarcasm aside, in a time of a medical emergency, it is the job of medical professionals to make decisions, because public safety supersedes individual freedoms. This might be true for like the first week or two of march but after that... the response should absolutely not be solely in the hands of nothing but "medical experts". Those people were never elected, are not accountable at all for their actions, and were…

> the response should absolutely not be solely in the hands of nothing but "medical experts"

This wasn't the case, and to say so is a blatant misrepresentation of the past. Did Fauci issue a travel ban, enact the Defense Production Act, or redirect the supply of medical equipment? Did the CDC somehow supersede congressional authority and directly fund research via the CARES Act? Were appellate courts no longer hearing cases regarding COVID and civil liberties?

> you also chatted with business people to get insight [...]

this reinforces my point: anyone who happens to be impacted is not entitled to input. Conversations between medical professionals and public officials were occurring every single day. But - do you think Trump was genuinely listening to his advisors?

> there are multiple often conflicting requirements and have the hard work of deciding what the right tradeoffs to make are

that's exactly my point, again. No one knew it was going to mutate that quickly and stay an issue. The tradeoff for doing less was more people dying.

Post reply on HN