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

The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

thebulletin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 578 posts

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#291

Post by manwe150 »

FabHK wrote: post #230
andreareina wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reading it as shorthand for, "The prior probability of a lab escape is low, and we didn't see much evidence for it in this particular case, therefore we conclude that this instance being a lab escape is low", which is a fine argument.

Sure, > The prior probability of a lab escape is low but the prior probability of "a pandemic from natural causes envelops the world" is also low, say below 1% a year. But now, given that "a pandemic does envelop the world", the posterior probability of lab escape and natural cause of course rises dramatically... and then saying "we didn't see much evidence for it" on a superficial tour organised by those responsible…

Many low probability events happen every day, without contradicting the prior that they remain unlikely.

It is akin to saying "Pliny the Younger didn't die in Pompeii overtaken by a volcano because there is so many other cities he could have died in and other causes of death." Statistically, that would have been true, up until we learned that it happened. Then the low probability ceases to matter, since it becomes an observation.

Statistically, this is due to both priors rising, proportional to their original values, such that now the sum P(lab escape)+P(natural cause) == 1 and their average is a coin-toss (50-50). So without outside information, the prior statistical probability isn't low: it is exactly neutral between the options.

We've also seen viruses arise in small villages. This is even more unlikely to be predictable in advance which village with p << 0.0001.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#292

Post by twobitshifter »

KoftaBob wrote: post #180
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's important to know and it's important not to know. Both paths have mostly negative outcomes. The best path is for it to have been natural, second best is accidental. Intentional is unfathomable and has unlimited downside. We should all hope that's not the case here.

I see very little incentive for China to release covid intentionally . What could they possibly have gained from that? Mind you, I'm becoming increasingly convinced it was an accidental lab leak due to negligence, so this isn't my attempt at defending China in any way.

Not saying they did intentionally leak it, but for an example of what they’ve gained, look at what they’ve been doing in Hong Kong and the South China Seas under cover of COVID. They also were able to quickly rebound and start producing economically while the rest of the world was shut down. I think COVID has been a net positive for China from a strategic standpoint.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#293

Post by travisp »

makomk wrote: post #153
Clewza313 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I've been pretty skeptical of the lab theory to date, but: > We visited the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is an impressive research facility, and looks to be run well, with due regard to staff health. We spoke to the scientists there. We heard that scientists’ blood samples, which are routinely taken and stored, were tested for signs they had been infected. No evidence of antibodies to the coronavirus was fou…

> This is probably the most convincing argument: if they actually had worked on viruses similar enough to plausible be modified into SARS-CoV-2, this would have left evidence in scientific papers etc. If I remember correctly, wasn't there no evidence in scientific papers etc that the virus RaTG13, which is the closest known relative to SARS-CoV-2, actually existed until after the Covid pandemic started and they sudde…

This isn't hard for to check. Yes, basically all research on RaTG13 did appear after the Covid pandemic, as you would naturally expect given that scientists were interested in it given the similarity. Nobody was interested in the RaTG13 previously.

However, the evidence is pretty clear that this was found and published earlier. It was originally described as "BtCoV/4991" and it was described and published as far as I can find as far back as 2016. (The name was changed to RaTG13 to describe that it was collected in 2013 in Tongguan).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/983856042 <-- partial RaTG13 sequence in 2016

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#294

Post by followtheplot »

"... proponents of lab escape can explain all the available facts about SARS2 considerably more easily than can those who favor natural emergence."

"The natural emergence theory battles a bristling array of implausibilities."

This is a fantastic article, but amazingly almost all of it is year-old news. Most of this was known in March 2020, and nearly all of it by the end of 2020. How does it take so long for the truth to win?

I published a meta-analysis covering much of the same ground in November 2020 and this was only after waiting and expecting for several months that someone with a better platform would do so first. The article above covers the most important points but the story does go deeper: https://followtheplot.org/covid19

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#295

Post by darkerside »

altacc wrote: post #254
darkerside wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be rational to behave as if the event did occur if you don't know that it didn't. Even if we're 50/50 on the source of the virus, maybe we should still ban or regulate GoF research, and consider banning or regulating some types of wet markets.

No, it's not rational as then you're relying on the other side to prove a negative, which is an unreasonable reversal of burden of proof (e.g. Russell's teapot). As to 50/50 being reason to take large scale regulatory action, would you accept this level of proof to enact any law? That seems a low bar to me.

If there's a 50/50 chance there is an intruder in your house, wouldn't you act as if there was?

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#296

Post by dopidopHN »

diogenescynic wrote: post #281
Jeema101 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be that you're confusing cause and effect, though. How do we know that the virus (or a precursor) wasn't already circulating in China, and was simply detected in Wuhan because of the fact that there are experts in coronaviruses who reside there? (Also I'm not entirely sure your statement about the gain of function research is correct. A Google search doesn't seem to provide any evidence one way or another.)

Wouldn’t that be incredibly convenient and unlikely?

What would be unlikely for a pandemic to also affect wuhan?

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#297

Post by altacc »

FpUser wrote: post #268
altacc wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no clear yes/no answer here. Without a smoking gun either way there is a scale of probability/certainty and everyone who looks into this falls somewhere on that scale based on their experience, ideology, biases, research, etc... Personally I think lab origin is unlikely as whilst it's possible to describe how it could happen, that's not proof it did actually happen. Too often people mistake theoretical actio…

>"There is no clear yes/no answer here" There is. We just do not know it. But somebody does.

Well, no. I was referring to the question posed related to available knowledge and your article. But your statement makes an assumption that it’s origin is a lab, as that would be the only way that somebody would know for sure. If it’s natural in origin then that person does not exist, or if they did would publish their research and claim the glory. So you’re taking a position on the scale of certainty which is dependent upon your own conclusions based on uncertainty.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#298

Post by okaram »

tomp wrote: post #174
ximeng wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the lab origin theory is flawed based on the scientific reasoning, not the meta analysis. I agree that the meta analysis is inconclusive as it is not emphasising the science enough. The feeling I get is China doesn't really want to talk about it because it encourages ideologically motivated people to attack China, and serious scientists are mostly not convinced that this is a lab escape and so don't feel th…

I find it hard to take seriously any “scientist” that dismisses an idea as a “conspiracy theory” (i.e. a concept developed by the CIA specifically to discredit political opponents) as opposed to using actual rational / scientific arguments. At best, it demonstrates intellectual laziness, at worst a political / ideological conviction, neither of which is a hallmark of a good scientist.

But it needing a conspiracy to be kept quiet is one of the main arguments against thr lab theory.

How many people (lab technicians, doctors, 'police') would know it is from a lab and are hiding that information? If the answer is 'hundreds' then the chances of it being kept hidden are very low. That is what labeling it a conspiracy theory means.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#299

Post by FpUser »

altacc wrote: post #188
FpUser wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if the article tells the truth? Why would author's racial preferences matter? You might be surprised how much of modern tech was developed by racists and other bad apples. If you are from the US try reading how your rocket / space industry had been developed for example.

This article should definitely be read as an opinion piece, not objective analysis to conclude the truth. Regardless of his personal views it's his methods that introduce a lot of doubt. The author has previously dismissed large swathes of scientific consensus against his publications as ideologically driven. He takes fringe positions and introduces a lot of selection and confirmation bias to support his opinion. He…

As I've already said elsewhere I only interested in an answer to whether this virus has been created artificially. The author are you already said has some "interesting ideas". And the real answer to this question if known has definitely nothing to do with this author's views on racial subjects as he is in no position to answer it accurately in a first place. He just raises concerns.

Re: The origin of Covid: Did people or nature open Pandora’s box?

#300

Post by Bayesian_bro »

The origin of COVID-19 is going to be one of the biggest news stories in 2021-22 IMO. China's global reputation is going to take a hit. I don't think they did this intentionally. I think everyone had the best of intentions and either they found something deep in a bat cave or there was a lab mishap. I've gone down the rabbit hole on this issue. Here are some interesting links https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=R01AI110964&hl=en&as_sd... is the papers done by a NIH grant to Eco Health Alliance. This shows they were looking for new variants of Coronavirus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7089274/pdf/114... This shows they were artificially synthesizing Coronaviruses and incubating them in monkey cells. Dr. Peter Daszak seems to be in the center of a lot of this and IMO had a conflict of interest being on the WHO COVID-19 origins report.
Post reply on HN