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

Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

natesilver.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 385 posts

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#281

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

COGlory wrote: post #219
stubybubs wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Although the evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus, it is currently impossible to prove or disprove the other theories of its origin described here. However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible. More scie…

>Historically, a zoonitic origin is extremely likely. Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps. People that wish to shutdown lab leak conversation are quick to mix in engineering. Lots of less educated people can't tell the difference. It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab.

> Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps

No. First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open. Second, while there were a few leaks of SARS-CoV after it had been discovered and was being grown in large quantities (these leaks were recognized immediately, too), there is no precedent for a previously unknown coronavirus leaking.

> It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab.

Not really. If the virus is natural in origin (which is a certainty now) and completely unknown before the initial outbreak (also a virtual certainty now), the chance that it somehow entered a lab, unknown, and then exited again are basically zero, compared to the chance that it spilled over in any one of the many millions of daily interactions between humans and wild or farmed animals.

They were selling farmed wild animals that we know can carry SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan market, and that's where the initial outbreak was centered. In contrast, there's zero evidence for a lab leak, and not for lack of searching. There's simply no evidence that anyone at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had or knew about this virus before the outbreak, and we have a very good idea of what the WIV was researching.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#282

Post by throwawaymaths »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #281
COGlory wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Historically, a zoonitic origin is extremely likely. Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps. People that wish to shutdown lab leak conversation are quick to mix in engineering. Lots of less educated people can't tell the difference. It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab.

> Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps No. First of all, there were many jumps of SARS from animals into humans, over a period of months in which the markets containing infected animals were open. Second, while there were a few leaks of SARS-CoV after it had been discovered and was being grown in large quantities (these leaks were recogni…

You're wrong. There have been at least three known lab leaks of SARS cov-19 post pandemic. Here is one in Taiwan:

https://thebulletin.org/2022/01/a-lab-assistant-involved-in-... becoming-infected-at-work/amp/

Covid-19 is very slippery. Analogizing from historical pandemics is begging the question and doesn't match the data.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#283

Post by MaxHoppersGhost »

tomhoward wrote: post #238

A few years ago I started undertaking practices to let go of emotional attachments, which I discovered after a lengthy and difficult period trying to figure out how to overcome some major life challenges. I’ve been doing these practices consistently now for about 11 years. Even after all that time, I’m not at all free of emotional attachments; I’m working through some very deep career-related ones right now. But that…

Very well said. What’s sad is how hard it is to get people to recognize they’re doing this, and no one thinks they do it heven though everyone is guilty of it. I don’t know what the answer is but it’s destroying society’s trust.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#284

Post by COGlory »

stubybubs wrote: post #232
COGlory wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Historically, a zoonitic origin is extremely likely. Historically, there have been far, far more documented lab leaks of SARS-CoV than there have been animal-human jumps. People that wish to shutdown lab leak conversation are quick to mix in engineering. Lots of less educated people can't tell the difference. It is very possible that the virus was both zoonotic in origin, and leaked from the lab.

My point is that we don't have any documented anything for the first couple hundred thousand of years of humanity's existence, and we encountered the most horrific viral and bacterial infections, many of which caused unthinkable mass deaths. They were so awful we attributed them to God(s) as punishment for our bad behavior. None of them have documented microbiological origins. Some would have some from spontaneous mu…

Because I didn't catch the edit:

>Your hypothesis seems to be that it spread from lab distantly because of incubation time, then stopped spreading distantly once it reached the market? That does not make sense.

It's not my hypothesis, I'm just pointing out the evidence is circumstantial and the language used by virologists is precisely engineered to lump together strong evidence that proves one thing (that the virus was zoonotic in origin) with weak evidence they want to claim proves another thing (that it couldn't have been a lab leak). It's dishonest language and it drives me nuts, because people aren't sheep or idiots, can find the inconsistencies, and will further have their trust in institutions eroded.

This whole debacle reeks even more when you look at the timeline. These claims were coming out before even that circumstantial evidence was available, when this really truly was just a best guess because it's how we think the last SARS operated.

My personal opinion is that:

1) We'll never have any better evidence than what we have now (so we'll never have any good evidence, short of the Chinese govt being hacked)

2) It doesn't really matter because both are plausible and so our safety models should include both

3) The thing of real importance here isn't what is being debated, but rather how the debate itself was performed, and what it says about authority, institutions, honesty, and elitism in the scientific community.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#285

Post by refurb »

ke88y wrote: post #10

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education. At university I majored in two STEM subjects but also took 10 courses in Philosophy, Art, History, Journalism, and Economics. Almost no one majoring in any of those fields except Econ took more than 2-3 STEM courses, and even then there a dedicated watered down courses to ensure those people could graduate (Algebra instead of…

Big question: HOW? Most journalists in the USA receive basically zero scientific education.

1. By talking to a variety of experts

2. Purposefully seeking out alternative narratives or skeptics among reputable scientists.

3. Following up on criticisms that pop up across multiple, well regarded skeptics.

5. Challenging the original scientist based on input from these skeptics.

6. Transparently reporting on responses to these challenges.

Instead today we get:

1. Scientist makes claim

2. Reporter parrots the talking points

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#286

Post by supazek »

smrtinsert wrote: post #164
xkbarkar wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot to mention the lefts position. They usually used the lab-leak theory to ridicule, mock and even have careers ended for those who dared to propose it as plausible. As so many of our media outlets lean to the left, the mocking and ridiculing was clearly ubiquitous. And when it started to look like lab leak theory had some merit, media just went silent on the matter. SO I disagree hard with that it's a right…

The media was not silent as it became more plausible it was prominent. Seems like you have have a somewhat myopic consumption pattern.

>myopic consumption pattern

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#287

Post by lbeltrame »

To be fair, some scientists made fools of themselves and their (and mine!) profession when speaking to the media. And most of the time journalists treated them as infallible priests handing down absolute truths (like when someone mistook relative risk reduction for proportion of patients responding to a drug... in an EU national newspaper). I even saw falsehoods (yes, falsehoods) on immunity appearing on mainstream papers ("Omicron bypasses vaccines" - totally false): at some point I thought my immunology textbooks would self-combust.

More on topic, even though I tend towards the natural origin hypothesis, there's not enough evidence to show that it is the only possible idea, and that at least a leak (I think bioengineering is far less likely) is possible.

And personally I think (of course, that's just my opinion) the whole debate is there due to the Fauci controversy about GoF research, not necessarily about the actual virus.

Shutting down debate like this was never a good idea and in fact reinforced the conspiracy theory supporters. Because people are people, and despite the uncertainty, they started treating lack of evidence as "facts".

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#288

Post by lyu07282 »

The real problem with the lack of skepticism in journalism is not science but foreign policy, literally the death of more than a million people (in the case of the iraq war) can directly be attributed to journalist malpractice and there has been ZERO change or recognition of their structural failure, its exactly the same deeply incurious journalists parroting often harmful propaganda today.

Re: Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists

#289

Post by krainboltgreene »

tomhoward wrote: post #238

A few years ago I started undertaking practices to let go of emotional attachments, which I discovered after a lengthy and difficult period trying to figure out how to overcome some major life challenges. I’ve been doing these practices consistently now for about 11 years. Even after all that time, I’m not at all free of emotional attachments; I’m working through some very deep career-related ones right now. But that…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN