Live data from Hacker News

Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

nytimes.com

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

#11
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are the "actually qualified"?

The people who claim to be "actually qualified" are the same people who run (ran?) the show at the NIH that have been actively covering up their own opinion that the lab leak of the research they were funding is the most likely source of COVID-19.

What about actually fun conspiracy theories? Wouldn't any plot trying to reduce population with an artificial coronavirus push lab leak theories in order to depress virus research? If you prefer Big Pharma as the bad guys, wouldn't Western pharmaceutical cartels attempting to earn billions selling vaccines attempt to discredit China as a diversion?

Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

#13
post #3

And yet, shockingly, the consensus of the actually qualified remains that it didn’t start in a lab.

And what is this consensus based upon outside of what is most beneficial for their field of study? As stated in the article we have not found any infected animals, no antibodies or samples pointing to infected animals, no precursor viruses found circulating in any animals species, no separate spillover events nothing. This is something we find for all spillovers and all of this evidence was uncovered almost immediately for SARS1/MERS. Take a look at the current bird flu situation cropping up, whenever we find a case, we find infected animals at the farm, we find the virus in animals during random sampling, we find the virus in raw milk, we observe many independent outbreaks etc.

How is it that such an infectious virus no longer exists in any animal population? It's as if after the first human got infected the virus simply vanished off the face of the Earth like some sort of immaculate infection. Now how come when humans infected cats/dogs/deer etc. via reverse zoonosis that SARS2 didn't stop circulating in humans?

Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

#14
post #10
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are the "actually qualified"?

Vincent Racaniello https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello He does not think this started in a lab.

So you refer to a consensus of the thinking of one person?

I estimate the probability that the virus is 100% of natural origin to 3.21 ×10−11. And I am backed by one widely ignored article:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.8348...

Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

#15
post #14
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vincent Racaniello https://microbiology.columbia.edu/faculty-vincent-racaniello He does not think this started in a lab.

So you refer to a consensus of the thinking of one person? I estimate the probability that the virus is 100% of natural origin to 3.21 ×10−11. And I am backed by one widely ignored article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.8348...

Help me understand your math:

3.21 ×10−11

Do you mean 3.21*(-1)=-3.21

Do you mean a number between 32,100,000,000 and 321,000,000,000?

Do you mean odd between 3.21:10 and 3.21:11?

Thanks

Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

#16
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you refer to a consensus of the thinking of one person? I estimate the probability that the virus is 100% of natural origin to 3.21 ×10−11. And I am backed by one widely ignored article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fviro.2022.8348...

Help me understand your math: 3.21 ×10−11 Do you mean 3.21*(-1)=-3.21 Do you mean a number between 32,100,000,000 and 321,000,000,000? Do you mean odd between 3.21:10 and 3.21:11? Thanks

Sorry. Copy'n'paste crap. But it should be obvious, and from the linked article clear, that it should be 3.21*10E-11.

Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

#17
post #4
post #3

And yet, shockingly, the consensus of the actually qualified remains that it didn’t start in a lab.

Who are the "actually qualified"?

Virologists and epidemiologists, as opposed to a molecular biologist with no particular specialized training in either of those topics.

Well, that was easy.

Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

#18
post #3

And yet, shockingly, the consensus of the actually qualified remains that it didn’t start in a lab.

And what is this consensus based upon outside of what is most beneficial for their field of study? As stated in the article we have not found any infected animals, no antibodies or samples pointing to infected animals, no precursor viruses found circulating in any animals species, no separate spillover events nothing. This is something we find for all spillovers and all of this evidence was uncovered almost immediate…

Likely precursors have been known in both bats and pangolins since virtually the start of the pandemic (see below) and are widely found in those populations to this day; the entire catalogue of possible precursor genomes in both wild bats and pangolins is (and likely will remain) extremely undersampled (to the degree we barely see any of the current picture of the wild viral load of these animals), so your apparent expectation of them being found in anything like the population of almost entirely domesticated populations of Arabian dromedaries (MERS) and entirely domesticated commercial cattle (current H5N1 spillover risk) is quite simply ludicrous. As it’s entirely possible the spillover mutation was either within a single, long-eaten, animal sample or occurred in a single human post-infection there’s no reason to assume the original lineage of SARS-CoV-2 itself would ever be captured in any wild animal population.

I don’t even know how to speak to the bizarre (but possibly simply badly communicated on your part) assertion that human -> animal re-transmission events either should (or even could) result in a magic cessation of circulation in humans, as that’s just nonsensical. Post human SARS-CoV-2 lineage infections still persist in animal populations (mink, for example) and likely will continue to do so essentially forever… there’s literally nothing immaculate about this entire situation.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9

Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

#19
Jeffrey Sachs is quite entertaining on similar points https://youtu.be/JS-3QssVPeg?t=6500

He was Chairman of the Lancet Covid-19 Commission, and originally a believer that it didn't come from a lab, now flipped. Sorry the interview is with Tucker. Quite a lot more on the politics of the thing and why it would have happened than the nyt article.

Re: Why the pandemic probably started in a lab, in 5 key points

#20
post #3

And yet, shockingly, the consensus of the actually qualified remains that it didn’t start in a lab.

Citation might be needed on that one. I mean fair enough at the start but the evidence has been accumulating.

Also in the Sachs video I linked elsewhere there's quite a nice bit on the consensus of the actually qualified from here for about 3 mins https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS-3QssVPeg&t=7205s

Post reply on HN