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

Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

biorxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 250 posts

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#181

Post by roenxi »

rossdavidh wrote: post #129

The opening line: "To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident." Is that true? I mean I understand why people would be curious, but does it really matter, in terms of what we need to do? We know that viruses _can_ spillover from animals to people, and we know that viruses in a laboratory setting…

This is a case of cognitive biases, and an unfortunate reflection on peoples inability to reason about risk.

Obviously if it is possible that COVID came from a lab then we should act as though it did - the best case is these labs are catastrophes still waiting to happen. And I suspect so is the web of international travel we've built up over the last few decades.

But at a population level, the human race can't process the implications of that. People are profoundly evidence based - we won't see action until there is evidence that a risk is manifesting. Which is possibly why people care about whether COVID originated in a lab or outside one.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#182

Post by farseer »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #176
rossdavidh wrote: post #129

The opening line: "To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident." Is that true? I mean I understand why people would be curious, but does it really matter, in terms of what we need to do? We know that viruses _can_ spillover from animals to people, and we know that viruses in a laboratory setting…

> I don't know that I believe that the answer to which one happened in the case of covid-19, is all that important It is when literally this week a version with an 80% kill rate but with the spread of the most transmissible was made in a lab for no good reason. How many would die if that leaked out and the only reason it’s been made is just so some academic can get their name in a paper and earn some grant presumably…

It could be a random lab in Cambodia, run by a professor with dreams and ambitions for fame and fortune. The point is you can't really regulate gain of function research. Pandemic preparation has to keep that in mind. That includes isolating countries immediately after a disease of unknown origin is found.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#183

Post by arisAlexis »

divided wrote: post #83
arisAlexis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on bayesian priors.how mahy coronaviruses were studied, how frequently a new virus is found next to a biolab of said virus by chance etc. The extraordinary claim could be that it is of natural origin actually.

Fun fact! There are just 9,110 named virus species as of 2021. But there are estimates that mammals and birds may have as many as 1.7 million undiscovered viruses. An older source says there were ~200 some known viruses that could infect humans as of 2013. They estimate there are 800k unknown ones which could infect us. Basically every time they look for viruses, they find new ones.

How many bat coronaviruses existed in the vicinity of the Wuhan market, including the specimens from the laboratory ? How many bats were freely roaming in the neighborhood? That's a much better probability analysis, not a flu virus in Antarctica

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#184

Post by SturgeonsLaw »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #176
rossdavidh wrote: post #129

The opening line: "To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident." Is that true? I mean I understand why people would be curious, but does it really matter, in terms of what we need to do? We know that viruses _can_ spillover from animals to people, and we know that viruses in a laboratory setting…

> I don't know that I believe that the answer to which one happened in the case of covid-19, is all that important It is when literally this week a version with an 80% kill rate but with the spread of the most transmissible was made in a lab for no good reason. How many would die if that leaked out and the only reason it’s been made is just so some academic can get their name in a paper and earn some grant presumably…

> a version with an 80% kill rate

An 80% kill rate of mice that are genetically engineered to express human ACE genes. For comparison, the original SARS-CoV-2 strain killed 100% of those humanised mice. Those rates aren't the same among human populations.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#185

Post by _Wintermute »

fsh wrote: post #143
lamontcg wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another blue check immunologist on twitter with a substantially different take: https://twitter.com/K_G_Andersen/status/1583252866394771456

It's incredible that the only sensible comments on this thread are this far down. The HN audience really has a massive Dunning-Kruger problem when it comes to science topics (especially true for COVID conspiracy theories).

As a pharmacologist reading the HN crowd arguing about hydroxychloroquine a year or so ago really highlighted 90% of this site regarding topics other than development or start-ups is at the same level as youtube comments, but with more arrogance.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#186

Post by bombolo »

farseer wrote: post #182
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know that I believe that the answer to which one happened in the case of covid-19, is all that important It is when literally this week a version with an 80% kill rate but with the spread of the most transmissible was made in a lab for no good reason. How many would die if that leaked out and the only reason it’s been made is just so some academic can get their name in a paper and earn some grant presumably…

It could be a random lab in Cambodia, run by a professor with dreams and ambitions for fame and fortune. The point is you can't really regulate gain of function research. Pandemic preparation has to keep that in mind. That includes isolating countries immediately after a disease of unknown origin is found.

Then those countries will just not tell anyone.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#187

Post by projektfu »

jhanschoo wrote: post #133
tiagod wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've seen horizontal gene transfer in fish, was it aliens or natural selection? Extremely unlikely events happen when an extreme amount of attempts are made, and natural selection amplifies them if they increase fitness

Your reply after reading the explanation is like you seeing a farm of branded cows and wondering if it was due to extreme natural selection that caused that. From the layperson article: > In wild viruses, these cutting/pasting sites are randomly distributed because there's no evolutionary pressure for the virus to be thusly cut and pasted in nature. In infectious clones, however, the humans behind the screen tend to…

Cows don't randomly develop brands on the order of 0.1% to 1% probability. There isn't a great analogy for this and your example, as well as the hyena one in another comment, are way overstating the case.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#188

Post by k3liutZu »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #176
rossdavidh wrote: post #129

The opening line: "To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident." Is that true? I mean I understand why people would be curious, but does it really matter, in terms of what we need to do? We know that viruses _can_ spillover from animals to people, and we know that viruses in a laboratory setting…

> I don't know that I believe that the answer to which one happened in the case of covid-19, is all that important It is when literally this week a version with an 80% kill rate but with the spread of the most transmissible was made in a lab for no good reason. How many would die if that leaked out and the only reason it’s been made is just so some academic can get their name in a paper and earn some grant presumably…

> It is when literally this week a version with an 80% kill rate but with the spread of the most transmissible was made in a lab for no good reason.

It was a modified version bringing the kill rate down from 100% to 80% in lab mice specifically bread to be weak to this virus.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#189

Post by stefantalpalaru »

roenxi wrote: post #181
rossdavidh wrote: post #129

The opening line: "To prevent future pandemics, it is important that we understand whether SARS-CoV-2 spilled over directly from animals to people, or indirectly in a laboratory accident." Is that true? I mean I understand why people would be curious, but does it really matter, in terms of what we need to do? We know that viruses _can_ spillover from animals to people, and we know that viruses in a laboratory setting…

This is a case of cognitive biases, and an unfortunate reflection on peoples inability to reason about risk. Obviously if it is possible that COVID came from a lab then we should act as though it did - the best case is these labs are catastrophes still waiting to happen. And I suspect so is the web of international travel we've built up over the last few decades. But at a population level, the human race can't proces…

No post body was provided.

Re: Endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2?

#190

Post by landswipe »

pencilguin wrote: post #60
danbtl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why play blame games Because of the question of liability: If it was lab made and accidentally released, was it due to recklessness or criminal negligence? Is someone guilty of involuntary mass-manslaughter? Or if this was state-sponsored research, could they be found liable for the damage caused?

What court would usefully find this? What authority would enforce it?

I think you'll find the wheels are already in motion (if the hypothesis is true).
Post reply on HN