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

311–320 of 792 posts

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#311

Post by dekhn »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #304
harshreality wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the "evidence" against lab-leak is just weird insinuation. Speculation about how the virus wasn't created wholly synthetically: nobody is seriously arguing it was, or it wouldn't be SARS-family. Arguments that the spike protein binding domain wasn't synthetically engineered: it didn't have to be. It could have been serial passage in humanized mice, considering that's what Daszak and co had literally proposed…

You don't understand biology. It is possible to date the divergence of genomes using a genetic clock. So they know if those spike proteins had been recombinated. Serial passage in mice can't be ruled out but is quite out there. Lots of theories can't be completely ruled out, but wild speculation like that is not very productive. For the lab-leak theory to be true, a "pandemicable" zoonotic virus (a VERY rare thing) h…

What does "date divergence of genomes using a genetic clock"? I am curious to learn about such a tecnology. If you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock that is highly non-quantitative.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#312

Post by ShannonLimiter »

snowwrestler wrote: post #276
ShannonLimiter wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) Understanding the origin doesn't change the consequences or response to the pandemic I have the opposite opinion. If there was a lab leak and a coverup, this meant that the Chinese government likely knew earlier and had more information about the nature of the virus and how it spread. That could have saved millions of lives. We spent the first several months of the pandemic under the belief that it wasn't airbor…

> If there was a lab leak and a coverup, this meant that the Chinese government likely knew earlier and had more information about the nature of the virus and how it spread. That could have saved millions of lives. The lesson here is not “we need to prove it was a lab leak,” the lesson is “we need better visibility inside China.” Which is also true for viruses that arise naturally inside China. Do you think that if y…

> The lesson here is not “we need to prove it was a lab leak,” the lesson is “we need better visibility inside China.” Which is also true for viruses that arise naturally inside China.

The WIV was conducting research with US financial and technical support. The lab in question regarding a potential leak was funded in part to look for early signs of outbreaks.

If there was a lab leak and it was inadvertently caused by this lab, would you suggest that we continue to fund and provide support with no changes?

> One of my frustrations with the “lab leak theory” is that it seems to cause fuzzy thinking about future preparedness.

I can't speak to what you've seen elsewhere, but future preparedness should involve more transparency, safeguards that samples are being tested with the right safety levels and actual independent oversight.

It seems crazy to continue funding a bad faith actor without those conditions.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#313

Post by uoaei »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #304
harshreality wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the "evidence" against lab-leak is just weird insinuation. Speculation about how the virus wasn't created wholly synthetically: nobody is seriously arguing it was, or it wouldn't be SARS-family. Arguments that the spike protein binding domain wasn't synthetically engineered: it didn't have to be. It could have been serial passage in humanized mice, considering that's what Daszak and co had literally proposed…

You don't understand biology. It is possible to date the divergence of genomes using a genetic clock. So they know if those spike proteins had been recombinated. Serial passage in mice can't be ruled out but is quite out there. Lots of theories can't be completely ruled out, but wild speculation like that is not very productive. For the lab-leak theory to be true, a "pandemicable" zoonotic virus (a VERY rare thing) h…

> "pandemicable" zoonotic virus (a VERY rare thing) has to somehow make it into a lab undetected.

This is the opposite of what I understood the lab-leak theory to be: that an initially-zoonotic virus was identified and bred in a lab until someone working at that lab with lax security standards accidentally brought it out of the quarantine. This is plausible at face value.

I think a lot of the really extreme vitriolic reactions to lab-leak theory are conflating it with the accusations that a secret cabal purposefully engineered and released this virus to sow harm and discord. But that's not at all the connotation of "leak" IMO -- leak implies a lack of intention.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#314

Post by bayesian_horse »

rzz3 wrote: post #285
elif wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you put on evidence in quotes? The deletion of the bat coronavirus database at Wuhan institute of virology prior to the pandemic is an undisputed and central fact. Your quotation marks do nothing to diminish this fact alone's inherent demand that Occam's razor be inverted.

Sure, but Occam’s is a logical shortcut, not a method of scientific conclusion. I personally suspect a lab leak origin, but I can’t say I have conclusive evidence. I just find it extremely likely based on a myriad of circumstantial evidence, and a lack of any conclusive evidence of natural origin.

I find it extremely unlikely given what I know about biology and how viruses and epidemiology works.

Lack of transparency in China is no proof, it's standard operating procedure. They'll try to CYA even if they didn't do anything wrong, maybe especially then.

The simplest and most probable way the pandemic started really is the way pandemics usually start: by a pathogen jumping from an animal species to Humans, without passing through a lab whatsoever.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#315

Post by mikeyouse »

jahewson wrote: post #293
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…

That's a very well researched article you link to, but assumptions are tricky things: > The fact that there were two distinct lineages early on is of critical importance, as this could imply a hidden community transmission for months (lineage A could’ve evolved into lineage B) before the outbreak at the Huanan market. Alternatively, the two lineages could have evolved in an animal reservoir from a shared MRCA before…

> Option two assumes that the lab had only one lineage of the virus - but it collected samples out in the wild and could easily have collected both together, mixed and stored them, and leaked them together. So the wonderfully detailed analysis rests on this assumption.

They were two lineages of the same virus, commonly seen in repeated spillover transmission. Explain specifically how you think they would "leak" both of them together - because the theory in your comment eliminates the option of an infected worker spreading the lab virus.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#316

Post by jaywalk »

tehjoker wrote: post #303

It's amazing that ppl still consider China a "bad actor" when they fairly promptly (a little delay but still months of lead time) warned the world and completely stopped the virus within their borders to this very day. The bad actors are the western governments with millions of dead on their hands trying to point the finger anywhere else.

If your post was meant as sarcasm, you should probably call that out.

If it wasn't... wow.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#317

Post by eric_cc »

giantrobot wrote: post #228
enchiridion wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Practically everybody knows this already and yet this comment shows up every time freedom of speech is discussed.

Censorship is bad even when legally permissible. And we should still fight corporations acting unethically even when the law is on their side.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#318

Post by robonerd »

walrus01 wrote: post #206
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…

> China is a bad actor and definitely contributed to the conspiracy madness around the virus by being so shut-down and performing such a half-assed investigation It definitely seems that the default reaction of any authoritaian/police-state environment like mainland China is to clamp down on things and restrict information whether or not it's necessary . One needs to only look at the many examples of various scandals…

> It definitely seems that the default reaction of any authoritaian/police-state environment like mainland China is to clamp down on things and restrict information whether or not it's necessary.

That tactic loses them the benefit of the doubt across the board. As long as their default reaction is to suppress everything, my default assumption is that they're guilty of every accusation they suppress.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#319

Post by dekhn »

mw888 wrote: post #240
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…

This is garbage appeal to authority designed to make people embarrassed to hold an opposite view. I learned nothing from your comment and was simply told to trust this source you hid any arguments behind. It’s not fostering discussion and it’s strawmanning those you disagree with.

The fundamental premise here is that most people who are arguing about COVID origins simply don't understand enough about known factual biology to make informed arguments. The appeal to authority is important because, in the case where we're not particularly knowledgeable, we should use authorities as guidance on how to reason.

I agree with what the parent said although I wouldn't say the evidence is "overwhelming". The important point is: China's government is so secretive we can't tell if they were intentionally covering something up, or just destroying all the evidence without any knowledge of what it said, to avoid people speculating from the documents.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#320

Post by dehrmann »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #274
dehrmann wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only alternative to this experiment is China's currently policy. There isn't much of a middle ground because anything short of aggressive testing, lockdowns, and quarantine won't be enough to stop the spread.

No, we literally just need to mandate N95 masks in public settings and get the effective R value down near 1 again. Contact tracing and government support for paid sick leave, etc. would control it even further. At no point do harsh lockdowns have to happen.

> No, we literally just need to mandate N95 masks in public settings and get the effective R value down near 1 again.

But as soon as people take off masks, it starts spreading again. It's also getting less politically viable when ~70% of Americans have had covid (the CDC estimated 60% in late April).

Post reply on HN