Live data from Hacker News

Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

twitter.com

251–260 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll also point out that some people don't like to believe that there can be global media conspiracies, even though there are (cf. "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" propaganda at the beginning). That's not a conspiracy, that's just common shared knowledge.

> "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" Putting aside the phrasing, which I take to be something like "unless you follow procedures and have new masks often etc". In the beginning this was the narrative because there was a shortage of masks, or because of plain ignorance. Masks are not perfect, but they were effective, which is why they are still mandatory in some contexts. If one can ignore…

> In the beginning this was the narrative because there was a shortage of masks, or because of plain ignorance.

Maybe I missed something, but I don't remember ever hearing "masks don't work unless you're a medical professional" (outside of later revisionist accounts by the right-wing "COVID isn't real and this is all a vast conspiracy" crowd); I mostly remember hearing "initial findings show that masks seem to be effective, but supplies are so short that we should ensure that our medical responders have access to them, so please don't go out and panic-buy them like you've been doing with toilet paper."

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#252

The main point that no scientists seems to want to mention is the clear cut and well defined conflict of interest in determining the origins. How would the scientists of the future ask for funding if it turns out they themselves directly caused an epidemic? It is a black eye for science, it provides ammunition to the "anti-science" crowd. In contrast scientists are in the drivers position if the cause was all natural…

What you're describing is more how a politician would think if "science" were a country.

But science isnt a country, most scientists arent politicians and most would prefer the truth to out.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To my knowledge, to this day, there are still exactly zero RCTs showing that masks were ever effective against COVID, and at least two major RCTs whose results indicate they are not very effective (there was no statistically significant benefit to masking). If, after two years of a world-wide pandemic, the best evidence we can put forth are low-quality observational studies which explicitly state they cannot show cau…

The fact that we were strongly told no and then yes with equal conviction is sufficient to demonstrate the point, regardless of whether masks work. Whether intentionally or not, media and governments can mislead in an in effect coordinated fashion. (Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as estab…

>(Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)

My friend, if you expect immediate inerrancy from everyone dealing with global-scale novel viruses, then I think you'll find that you'll _always_ be disappointed (or, more likely given your 1984 reference, you'll _always_ be the "victim" of another imagined conspiracy).

I do hope your friends, family, and coworkers afford you more space to learn, grow, and change (and that you practice doing so!) than you afford to others.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying I disagree with any of these, to be honest I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but there is some irony in posing an argument for good faith discussion by posting a list of questions you've already determined only have one true answer.

Your speculation of the poster’s positions on said questions is not in good faith either. Even if your assumptions were correct, they’re entirely irrelevant as the questions stand on their own.

these questions are basically copy pasta amongst the lab-leak crowd. that doesn't mean they aren't valid but I think it make sense to question the motivation in this instance.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#255
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually many people would like it to be false for personal profit or just human mentality. It's another ballpark of seriousness if that wasn't brought up by mother nature. What kind of evidence do you need? This paper is full of evidence that if you combine the probability of each event happening, the probability that it was accidental is really small. So the burden of probability should be to prove that it wasn't l…

At what probability does the burden of proof shift?

Although you can find a Bayesian answer for this which I am not qualified to calculate, it's irrelevant. The most pressing issue is not to dismiss it as zero probability as has been until know because it is viewed as a conspiracy. Even if the probability is very small we have to dig in deeper to prevent the next catastrophe.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#256
post #162

This is a very simple question. You just need 1 CSV file. A CSV file with a list of all BioWeaponsLabs and their coordinates. Then for every point on earth compute distance from nearest BioWeaponsLabs. This will give you a heatmap for pr(labLeak|pandemic). Few hrs work. Right? Has anyone done this yet?

Are you looking for a diagram like this one? https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.abm4454/asset/75... ( https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454 )

Very interesting, but unfortunately misleading because it doesn't show the updated location for the city campus for the WIV.

" The closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory." [0] (page 119)

[0] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-j...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#257

The early cases were very heavily concentrated around the Huanan wet market, but not around the lab, which is on the other side of the Wuhan, a pretty massive city.[0] If the virus had come from the lab, you'd expect the early cases to cluster around the lab. Instead, they were centered around a wet market, just like the early cases of the original SARS were back in 2002. This is completely aside from the other reaso…

" The closest known CoV RaTG13 strain (96.2%) to SARS-CoV-2 detected in bat anal swabs have been sequenced at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market. Such moves can be disruptive for the operations of any laboratory." [0] (page 119)

[0] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-j...

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#258

The main point that no scientists seems to want to mention is the clear cut and well defined conflict of interest in determining the origins. How would the scientists of the future ask for funding if it turns out they themselves directly caused an epidemic? It is a black eye for science, it provides ammunition to the "anti-science" crowd. In contrast scientists are in the drivers position if the cause was all natural…

> How would the scientists of the future ask for funding if it turns out they themselves directly caused an epidemic? It is a black eye for science, it provides ammunition to the "anti-science" crowd.

The real black eye for science is the refusal to consider a line of inquiry because the answer might be unacceptable.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#259

What I don't understand about this argument is why does it matter? Even if COVID was created in a lab in Wuhan they obviously didn't release it on purpose as a weapon (if they had they wouldn't have released it in Wuhan). There are any number of other labs around the world working on similarly dangerous research that could get released on accident.

No post body was provided.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#260

The only thing that it proves is that regardless of how the outbreak happened, if it was a killer virus we would be f*ck. 2 years later, we know few about its origin and we still fight with basic stuff like vaccine, treatment and lockdown.. One could say "well, we learned a lot during this two years", but I doubt that if same happens again, we are able to respond it as we should. Damn, even the question about masks (…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN