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

The Lab Leak Hypothesis

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 244 posts

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#171

Post by robbiep »

anon9001 wrote: post #35
coolspot wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, the state-sponsored gain-of-function research towards particular properties is not an accident. The Wuhan Institute of Virology has published papers on how they were able to modify a bat virus to achieve more dangerous properties [77][88]. [77] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/ [88] - https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debat...

How close are we to DIY viruses? If I was a teenager interested in biology, and I wanted to maybe build a "harmless" virus just to see if I could do it, how achievable might that be? I watched computer viruses go from: researchers -> tinkerers -> vandals -> criminals -> governments At this point we just assume every computer is compromised, and we carve out enclaves of varying security for whatever risk level we're w…

With the COVID vaccine, we’re now very close to being able to infect someone with vCJD through a pinprick, with technology that within a couple of years someone will be able to make at home.

The difficulty with what you’ve asked is we don’t have the API in the same way as with computers. I suspect that for many many iterations of computing power and biological understanding we are going to be a long way from being able to determine how to make something dangerous from scratch (although it should be easier to make something dangerous become more dangerous)

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#172

Post by esja »

csense wrote: post #80

Back in March or so, I wrote a comment about this [1], citing some even earlier (January 2020-ish) HN commentary. My conclusion: Lab leak's not inconsistent with the evidence, but there's no smoking gun. China's behavior is highly suggestive of guilt -- the moving location on Google Maps, destroying records, and not permitting any outside investigation. However, China could actually be completely innocent and just do…

Western countries (and particularly the US) have been conducting similar research for years. Despite imposing bans and other restrictions on their own soil, they may want the option to continue doing this in less regulated places, e.g. China. In the same way and for the same reasons that our manufacturers have outsourced hazardous production processes to less regulated countries. Personally I think it needs to be banned everywhere, urgently, and an inspection regime imposed.

The US may also have been complicit in this particular experiment. There was a lot of collaboration with Chinese researchers working in US labs and the US sponsoring the WIV, etc.

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#173

Post by esja »

robbiep wrote: post #169
esja wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how that evolutionary path led to the virus becoming better adapted to humans than it is to bats, and can you explain how all the samples we have ever found, from the very beginning of this outbreak, are uniquely adapted to humans? https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199

You’ve asked the same question in 3 spots. You’re asking the question backwards and not reading the other comments here (for example, the particular response you responded to) There are some very good reasonable answers for why and how this could have happened, unless you’re a biologist and are going to tell us how it happened (which the paper you cited doesn’t) you’re beating on a painful drum

Ok, if there are very reasonable answers, perhaps you can point to them?

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#174

Post by 36463736e6 »

cheph wrote: post #153
mabbo wrote: post #27

> There is no direct evidence for these zoonotic possibilities, just as there is no direct evidence for an experimental mishap But there is so much more opportunity for the zoonotic possibilities. In fact, this is the seventh time we've seen Betacoronavirus cross from bats, through another animal, and then into humans. SARS came via palm civets. MERS came via camels. Four more types cause a mild cold only and so they…

> We (humans) had wet markets filled with animals, including the very bats that carry the base virus. No wet markets here where I am ... so maybe speak for yourself.

So your country doesn't have stores or markets that carry live fish or display meat on a counter?

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#175

Post by nradov »

mabbo wrote: post #27

> There is no direct evidence for these zoonotic possibilities, just as there is no direct evidence for an experimental mishap But there is so much more opportunity for the zoonotic possibilities. In fact, this is the seventh time we've seen Betacoronavirus cross from bats, through another animal, and then into humans. SARS came via palm civets. MERS came via camels. Four more types cause a mild cold only and so they…

There is circumstantial evidence to indicate that the OC43 beta coronavirus crossed from animals in 1889 and killed about a million people worldwide. It can still be fatal to elderly or immunocompromised patients. The only reason it doesn't kill many people today is that most of us are infected as children and build up a level of immunity, so subsequent reinfections tend to have mild symptoms. Just like SARS-CoV-2.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#176

Post by germinalphrase »

kasey_junk wrote: post #160
himinlomax wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main point here is that the lab escape hypothesis has been hitherto dismissed out of hand when it ought not to be. I agree that the natural zoonotic contamination hypothesis is more plausible to begin with, but since it has not been confirmed (as in: no natural reservoir has been identified), the less plausible but nonetheless not implausible lab escape hypothesis should still be on the table.

The President of the United States is on record as saying it came from a lab. I’m not sure how that translates to “dismissed out of hand”.

The President says a lot of things...

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#178

Post by EliRivers »

esja wrote: post #158
mabbo wrote: post #27

> There is no direct evidence for these zoonotic possibilities, just as there is no direct evidence for an experimental mishap But there is so much more opportunity for the zoonotic possibilities. In fact, this is the seventh time we've seen Betacoronavirus cross from bats, through another animal, and then into humans. SARS came via palm civets. MERS came via camels. Four more types cause a mild cold only and so they…

Can you explain how this virus became (instantly) better adapted to humans than it is to bats? https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199

Looks like it didn't become better adapted. Already was. In lots of species, it's less well adapted. This is a non-story.

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#179

Post by mabbo »

esja wrote: post #161
mabbo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two answers. First, it was 96% identical. But that was in 2013. Presume it's being passed bat to bat every few days for 6 years, then at some point made the jump to another species, most likely in a wet market. It's really not unreasonable to imagine a 4% drift in that time. Second, we don't identify every virus or every strain of every virus. Just because we found one that was 96% similar doesn't mean that all the o…

Can you explain how that evolutionary path led to the virus becoming better adapted to humans than it is to bats, and can you explain how all the samples we have ever found, from the very beginning of this outbreak, are uniquely adapted to humans? https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199

It's not an unreasonable question. But my own guess? Selection bias applies.

Viruses grow by the millions, billions, and mutations occur frequently. This virus's ancestor might have hopped around civets for months. Then, a few random mutations on one got lucky and made it really good at infecting humans. That's when it made the leap. We don't see the billions of attempts and mutations that sucked at infecting humans. We see the one that did.

Now, my own bias is that my honours thesis was on evolutionary algorithms and I spent a lot of time being amazed at how well random mutations can lead to optimal answers.

Re: The Lab Leak Hypothesis

#180

Post by sradman »

noetic_techy wrote: post #72

I would implore those who are skeptical of a lab leak hypothesis to listen to the evolutionary biologist Bret Weinsteins Darkhorse Podcast with Yuri Deigin on the subject: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bret-weinstein-and-yur... Related article by Deigin: https://yurideigin.medium.com/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throug... The podcast is a much easier listen then the deep dive that is in the article. All in all, th…

Deigin conflates RNA samples with viral isolates that can be used to infect lab animals. Weinstein seems to be stuck on bat respiratory disease that spreads in roosting caves. He does not consider gastrointestinal infections spread by bat guano at night in their feeding range which is shared by nocturnal/arboreal pangolins and palm civets. Bat to human direct infection is also just as plausible near the horseshoe bat’s natural habitat.

The Barker article is confused about a 7-hour train ride not being compatible with a 4.5 day average incubation period.

I see no mysteries to explain just the hard work of animal surveillance required to connect the dots.

Post reply on HN