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

What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 792 posts

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#221

Post by choward »

SilverBirch wrote: post #140

I think this article is a very good example of the sort of pseudo-compelling argument. It's like one step along the road between 4chan conspiracy to Tucker Carlson. It's lots of stuff that sound like reasonable arguments, but are actually not. It starts by couching itself in the actual concensus - other people concluding that's a possibility! - Yes, that's true, but what they're concluding as a possibility out of a c…

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds to someone who isn't partisan and doesn't watch mainstream media? Besides the blatant lies like saying Fauci didn't fund the wuhan lab you use political terms like labeling people right wingers because they don't agree with you. That's the same strategy as the mainstream media you are defending. Then you mock people for wanting an actual debate. You need to get out of your bubble. Stop mindlessly believing everything you see on CNN without question.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#222

Post by epgui »

propagandist wrote: post #155
bragh wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny then how for the first few months of the pandemic the emphasis and public guidance was on desinfecting hands and surfaces and endless debates about how if masks actually help.

That was deliberate disinformation in order to save masks for the "frontline workers". Fauci has stated that in one of the hearings.

It wasn't disinformation. It was no secret that one of the reasons masks weren't recommended for general public use was that hospitals and clinics should be supplied as a priority.

If you got a different impression than this message, blame wherever you get your news from.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#223

Post by tomp »

mikeyouse wrote: post #84

For those with a bit more background in the sciences, there's an increasingly massive amount of evidence to support Zoonotic origin. Philipp Markolin has a good rundown: https://protagonistfuture.substack.com/p/natures-neglected-g... Most of the "evidence" for lab leak is just weird insinuation -- it's increasingly hard to pin down what the advocates for that position are even arguing (e.g. whether it's a natural vir…

What's your explanation for the fact that Moderna patented the very specific 19-nucleotide sequence that codes Sars-COV-2 furin cleavage site in 2018?

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#225

Post by snowwrestler »

phatboyslim wrote: post #73
fguerraz wrote: post #31

It's not that the origin story is not important, it's not that people don't care, it's that it is a distraction. It doesn't help solve the crisis. The article makes the comparison with a nuclear bomb. This is a bad comparison. If we were attacked by a sentient creature, we could reason with it and mitigate further damage or escalation. In the case of a virus, it's good to know to prevent future pandemics maybe, and t…

The origin story is paramount to preventing future outbreaks and to the loss of, and disruption to, our way of life. The US took the same position on combating terrorism when it rooted out Al-Qaeda. To stop future loss of life, the root cause needs to be identified and dealt with. I vehemently disagree with the assessment that the origin is not instrumental to the defense of future outbreaks.

No it is not, because it is undisputed that viruses can evolve to infect humans.

If we had 100% solid proof SARS-COV-2 originated in a lab, it would not change our approach to detecting or mitigating future outbreaks. We always have to prepare for either.

It’s not like it never occurred to anyone before that dangerous infectious agents could escape a lab. It was a well-known possibility and was incorporated into U.S. federal pandemic preparedness planning since at least the George W Bush administration.

An accidental leak from a lab must still be detected, and once detected, public health measures initiated. The procedures are the same as for a natural origin.

The fundamental lesson from COVID-19 is that we cannot let our guard down. The Trump administration did in many ways, and so were not able to detect or respond fast enough.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#226

Post by jessaustin »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #149
khazhoux wrote: post #3

Jon Stewart's classic lab-leak rant on Colbert's show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8&t=178s

I dig it because it's like a summary of half of the Marvel movies, where the protagonists spend the entire adventure solving a problem they caused themselves. Like, without the Thanos thingy, iron man is not a bloody hero, he is a villain. He is responsible for so much death and destruction it's not even funny. Black Mamba, killer. Black panther ? Maintains in place a political system that clearly allows any psychopa…

It is common for popular fiction to replicate themes and situations that people observe in life but cannot freely discuss.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#227

Post by UIUC_06 »

spamizbad wrote: post #42
UIUC_06 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me, but scientists are not public policy makers. Their job is to follow the evidence, not publish based on what they think will happen if they do.

Scientists are members of society too. They are not automatons.

They have one job. It's called "science." They go to school for that.

Other people, including the voting public, have the job of determining policy based on what they find.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#228

Post by giantrobot »

enchiridion wrote: post #128
rtkwe wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lab leak hypothesis was also pretty tightly coupled with the bioweapon/intentional release theory which is part of why it received so much push back. Also I don't recall the specific fact check messages but if they were in line with "there's no hard evidence of a lab leak" I'd say that's still pretty accurate.

That’s not a justification. You’re just saying that some speech you approve of was tied to some speech you disapprove of, so both should be censored. No speech should be censored.

The owner of a service has no requirement or duty to carry anyone's speech. A person's freedom of speech doesn't override anyone else's freedom of association. So a private company can censor or reject any speech using their service unless otherwise mandated by law (common carrier etc).

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#229

Post by TameAntelope »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #2

The lab-leak hypothesis is meta-scientific. When it was first tossed around, the lab leak hypothesis generated two predictions: 1. We would find evidence that someone was doing experiments on furin cleavage sites in coronaviruses. 2. We would find that the furin cleavage site matched a known sequence. We did not find 2, which should have been easy to find. Eventually, we found 1, since a rejected DARPA grant proposal…

We did not "find" 1 from any rejected DARPA grant proposal, that's nonsense and completely unsupported by the actual grant proposal. You cannot presume one leads to the other, that'd be like trying to cite a patent on a perpetual motion machine as conclusive proof perpetual motion machines exist.

I would argue that continuing to state what you have here qualifies as disinformation, and think HN should remove it immediately, lest HN become yet another breeding ground of this kind of anti-intellectual memetic drivel.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#230

Post by csours »

chrisco255 wrote: post #197
csours wrote: post #143

There are two sources that most people talk about: 1. The Wuhan Institute of Virology 2. A particular market in Wuhan. However, all we really know is that Wuhan is the first city with a lot of cases. It is entirely possible that the virus, or a virus precursor was active in a small population somewhere else. Also, there are a lot of labs in Wuhan besides the WIV.

I suppose it's possible, but is it likely? Given the virality of Covid if it was present in another city before hand that city would have been the first to get a lot of cases.

It spreads a bit more slowly in rural areas, and there could have been a mutation that increased fitness and spread in humans. There is very little that we can say MUST be true about the origin of Sars-Cov-2
Post reply on HN