Live data from Hacker News

Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

natesilver.substack.com

301–310 of 385 posts

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#301
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open. Can you point me to one or two cases you are talking about, please?

They may be referring to the study below [0]. This showed that several genetic variants (lineages) of SARS-CoV2 were identified in infected people associated with the market, indicating 1) that the virus was already circulating among people before the epidemic took off, and 2) that there was more than one transmission event. Note that no comparable data associates SARS-CoV2 with the lab in Wuhan. [0] The Huanan Seafo…

Moreover, there are some suggestions[0][1], which points to Wuhan World Military Games as starting point for the pandemic.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7813667/

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/23/congress-...

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#302

The real problem with the lack of skepticism in journalism is not science but foreign policy, literally the death of more than a million people (in the case of the iraq war) can directly be attributed to journalist malpractice and there has been ZERO change or recognition of their structural failure, its exactly the same deeply incurious journalists parroting often harmful propaganda today.

That's because they didn't fail. They succeded massively. That is exactly what they were hired for.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This, is damning evidence regardless of any of that. Nothing remotely like this was being presented by mainstream newsmedia, perhaps because nothing remotely like it was being presented to them by the scientists they talked to. There was no version of a lab origin theory that was being presented as worthy of consideration. You have to acknowledge this is incredibly weak logic. “A thing is possible, therefore it hap…

You are blatantly missing the point. The point: Scientist says in private "A thing is possible" but in public "A thing is not all possible!" Not the point: "A thing is possible, therefore it happened"

> but in public "A thing is not all possible!"

...and the media picking it up, shouting that thing did absolutely not happen, could never have happened, the debate is over, the science is settled, and anyone who breathes a word in opposition is stupid, dumb, smells bad, and votes for Trump.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#304
post #165

I, for one, am skeptical of everyone who still calls themselves a journalist.

Yes, journalists used to speak truth to power. Now they work on behalf of the power. And they don't just work on behalf of power, they are power themselves, and it isn't the people's power despite their claim to being "the voice of the people".

> Yes, journalists used to speak truth to power.

So people say. If you don’t trust journalists then why should you trust their history telling about the-way-things-were?

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#305
post #158

I spent at least an hour reading through both the emails and the slack messages in this "expose", but I came away from it fairly certain that they are being portrayed unfairly, and I'm fairly surprised that Nate Silver has latched on to this. You have to both look at the time-line of the paper writing and the time-line of the conversations. By my reading, by the time the paper was being written, most of them had inde…

Nate Silver has been blatantly wrong several times during COVID, has been schooled by actual scientists and is now on a personal vendetta against them. He is ready to fan the flames of science-bashing because his fragile yet enormuous ego has been hurt. That tells all that you need to know about him. (Don't believe me? He has never apologised nor shown a little bit of humility after being corrected. That's who he is.…

Give examples.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#306
post #165

I, for one, am skeptical of everyone who still calls themselves a journalist.

This level of cynicism is the cause of the downfall of society. Journalism is as necessary as government. As necessary as speech itself. Particularly in the age of perfect facsimiles of audio/photo/video evidence facilitated by AI, webs of trust and reputable sources of information will be as important as ever. It is dangerous and wrong to insult the profession as an idea. None of this is to say that journalism is fl…

Journalism is necessary in the sense that thought control is necessary in (nominally) democractic societies. See Walter Lippmann and others. (This comment is not an endorsement of that worldview.)

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#307

Late to the game, but actual experts explain in great detail why it wasn't a 'lab leak' here. https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-1019/ From ASM Microbe in Houston, Texas, Vincent speaks with Eddie Holmes about the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 spilled over into humans in the Huanan Market in Wuhan, absence of evidence for other origins , and his work on the virosphere.

Can you point to exact moment in the video, because video is long and I cannot find the argument against lab leak.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps No. First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open. Second, while there were a few leaks of SARS-CoV after it had been discovered and was being grown in large quantities (these leaks were recogni…

> First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open. Can you point me to one or two cases you are talking about, please?

SARS repeatedly spilled over into humans during 2002-2003, until the markets were shut down and the infected animal populations were culled. A review on SARS [0] describes how many independent clusters of SARS popped up over a period of months, spread across different markets in the Pearl River Delta:

> Between November 2002 and February 2003, the first cases or clusters of SARS appeared in several independent geographic locations in the Pearl River Delta region in southern Guangdong, and suggested multiple introductions of a virus or similar viruses from a common source. Several of the early cases were reportedly associated with occupations that involved contact with wildlife, including handling, killing and selling wild animals as well as preparing and serving wildlife animal meat in restaurants (Xu et al. 2004). Moreover, a study of early SARS cases (i.e. those with disease onset prior to January 2003) compared to those identified later in the outbreak found that 39% of early-onset cases were food handlers, whereas only 2%–10% of cases between February and April 2003 were associated with this occupation.

The review goes on:

> It was observed that early cases of SARS occurred independently in at least five different well-separated municipalities in Guangdong Province. The study also found that early patients were more likely than later patients to report living near a produce market, but not near a farm, and nine of 23 (or 39%) early patients were food handlers with probable animal contact.

The review also discusses how many SARS spillover events were not recognized at the time:

> Several studies revealed a higher than normal seroprevalence of SARS-CoV antibodies among wild animal traders. Guan et al. (2003) found that eight of 20 (40%) wild animal traders sampled from a market in Shenzhen, Guandong, in 2004 had anti-SARS-CoV antibodies in comparison to 1 from 20 (5%) vegetable traders from the same market. Yu et al. (2003) analysed serum samples taken on May 4, 2003 from animal traders in three different live animal markets in Guangzhou. Out of 508 animal traders surveyed, 13% had antibodies to SARSCoV; 72% of traders of masked palm civets ( Paguma larvata ) were seropositive. Interestingly, none of the animal traders had SARS or atypical pneumonia diagnosed during the SARS outbreak in Guangdong, suggesting asymptomatic infection by SARS-CoV or a closely related SARS-like coronavirus.

SARS probably spilled over countless times into humans during 2002-2003, because there was a large population of farmed animals that had it, and very little was done to cut off the spillover source for months.

This is a key difference from SARS-CoV-2. This outbreak was detected much more quickly (because of China's experience with SARS), and the very first thing the authorities did was to close the Huanan market and crack down on farms that raise the types of animals that are most likely to be involved in the spillover.

0. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70962-6_...

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#309
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m really not sure what you mean. There is literally zero evidence supporting a lab leak, while there’s multitudes of evidence of multiple contact leaps in the market. Was there a time when the lab leak theory had the same credibility as it being naturally occurring in poor unsanitary market conditions? I’d personally say no, but for the sake of argument, forgetting basic tenants like “the simplest explanation is mo…

Theres definitely lots of evidence: COVID on surfaces, animals that can catch COVID photographed in the market, cases surrounding/emerging from this point. But the smoking gun would be a covid positive sample from one of the animals, which we can’t get. This is what I mean by the evidence always being a little cloudy.

COVID jumped from humans to animals lot of times already. Whole animal farms were cleaned out.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps No. First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open. Second, while there were a few leaks of SARS-CoV after it had been discovered and was being grown in large quantities (these leaks were recogni…

You're wrong. There have been at least three known lab leaks of SARS cov-19 post pandemic. Here is one in Taiwan: https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/a-lab-assistant-involved-in-... becoming-infected-at-work/amp/ Covid-19 is very slippery. Analogizing from historical pandemics is begging the question and doesn't match the data.

How am I wrong?

There were countless spillover events for the original SARS. To this day, it's not known precisely how many SARS spillover events there were, because they were so numerous and tracing was so poor back then. In a different comment in this thread, I cited a review article that goes over the evidence for widespread spillover events of SARS in 2002-2003.[0]

The gist of it is that SARS popped up independently at numerous markets, dotted across the Pearl River Delta. SARS infection was very common among palm civet traders in the region (it's even possible that most of them became infected).

The lab leaks came later, after huge interest emerged in the new virus and it started to be cultured in large quantities in many labs. Those leaks were extremely rare compared to the spillover events, they were immediately detected, and they led to much stricter lab security practices. But the relative probability of a novel virus that nobody even knows they have initially leaking from a lab vs. spilling over from large animal populations that host the virus is basically nil.

0. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-540-70962-6_...

Post reply on HN