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

321–330 of 792 posts

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#321

Post by BeefWellington »

water554 wrote: post #192
affgrff wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a little suspicious, but also not too far fetched: Where would you put a lab researching Coronaviruses? Somewhere near where it exists in the wild.

No. It’s not where they exist in the wild. The closest related virus (RATG-13) to n-cov-2 come from northern china (Yunnan), where they were imported to the Wuhan virology lab to study. What a coincidence!

Firstly, Yunnan is in the southwest of China.

Secondly, other Coronaviruses have appeared in southern China -- notably the original SARS' first known case was in November of 2002 in Guangdong.[1] Wuhan is well-placed (relatively centrally) to do that kind of research.

Thirdly, RaTG13 likely isn't the closest related known virus anymore.[2][3]

[1]: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20030411/sars-timeline-of-ou...

[2]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02596-2

[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/14/science/bat-coronaviruses...

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#322

Post by bayesian_horse »

theptip wrote: post #45

I think the important point is not whether this outbreak was in fact a lab leak, but that it is entirely plausible due to gain-of-function research. Even if this one wasn’t a lab leak, the next one very well could be. The risk/reward profile of that sort of research is insanely unfavorable.

There's no proof of "gain of function" experiments at all or specifically linked to Sars-Cov-2. It is heavily unlikely that such an experiment would switch a virus from un-pandemic-able to pandemic-able. The mechanisms to do that are entirely theoretical.

So it's not clear at all that gain of function would have been able to create a Virus like Sars-Cov-2 out of a hypothetical bat virus. And there is no evidence any such research has been going on. Nor is there any evidence the virus has passed through the Wuhan lab in question at all.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#323

Post by jahewson »

tomp wrote: post #223
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?

The answer is that the Sars-COV-2 cleavage site, while novel for a coronavirus, is not novel biologically. It's seen elsewhere and corresponds to the inverse of the human protein MSH3, which plays a role in certain cancers.

It is not, as some people here are alleging, related to SARS-Cov-1.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#324

Post by giantrobot »

eric_cc wrote: post #317
giantrobot wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is unethical about not wanting to carry speech you don't agree with, is inflammatory, or outright misinformation?

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#325

Post by dariusj18 »

dekhn wrote: post #319
mw888 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".…

Another important fact. China has everything to lose from cooperation and nothing to gain. An unfortunate reality in geopolitics is to give no control to other countries of your own fate. If they were to grant access and attempt to be completely forthcoming, how are they to know that some group wouldn't attempt to fabricate evidence or muddy the waters further.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#326

Post by jacquesm »

dekhn wrote: post #77

With the lack of any really strong unequivocal data supporting any real hypothesis, I think people got tired of arguing about it and recognized that throwing around huge claims with massive implications was probably irresponsible.

That won't stop a number of them from trying to warm it up again every now and then.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#327

Post by jjoonathan »

gojomo wrote: post #249
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…

Overfocusing on the market cluster is an error. First, because viruses travel easily – so even if 100% of early cases were around the market, it could have reached the market via a lab worker. And second, early overemphasis on the market cluster caused authorities to search for every case there, and ignore cases elsewhere – just as in the US, authorities missed early community spread because they didn't even consider…

Lab-leak was a sensational "whodunnit" and the entire purpose of promoting it (true or not) was to distract from the far more important "what should we do about the pandemic." The people pushing for this distraction A. wanted to do nothing (economy in an election year) and B. once they realized that doing nothing was unwise, needed to cover for having pushed A too hard, with too many "aged like milk" statements and actions. It was the public health policy equivalent of shouting "look, a squirrel!" Re-focusing the narrative away from the squirrel and back onto the pandemic wasn't only not sinister, it was a gigantic face-palm that it had to be done in the first place.

That's also why interest evaporated: the two real reasons to push the story both expired in 2020. Now all that remains is idle curiosity. As far as I'm concerned: indulge. Go nuts. Now that you aren't worsening a public health crisis by pushing an election agenda, it really is just a fun little detective story, and I'm as curious as the next guy.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#328

Post by bayesian_horse »

synergy20 wrote: post #79

Based on what China's reaction to the source-chasing-efforts, I have no doubt it is where this is originated. Wuhan is a huge city with the only lab on earth that works with SARS, virus-leak is not uncommon in China over the years(including SARS-1 that was leaked a few times but was contained quickly), after COVID China issued lots of new policies including stricter lab management, and new leadership from military to…

Lack of transparency in China proves nothing. CYA is standard operating procedure there, regardless if there is any guilt or not. Up and down the chain they will cover for each other, if not for the simple reason they themselves don't know what shit their superiors or underlings are up to...

And it is entirely rational, even when they believe that there hasn't been a lab leak, to shut down any investigations into it, because all such work or information would just add fuel to the fire, regardless the "objective" outcome.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#329

Post by gojomo »

mikeyouse wrote: post #307
gojomo wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overfocusing on the market cluster is an error. First, because viruses travel easily – so even if 100% of early cases were around the market, it could have reached the market via a lab worker. And second, early overemphasis on the market cluster caused authorities to search for every case there, and ignore cases elsewhere – just as in the US, authorities missed early community spread because they didn't even consider…

Both of your points are directly and conclusively addressed in the post.. > First, because viruses travel easily – so even if 100% of early cases were around the market, it could have reached the market via a lab worker There were two distinct lineages at the market with a cluster of positive environmental samples in the wild animal section. I would love to hear a plausible theory on how two unrelated lineages came t…

The prior linked post is a gish-gallop of overconfident motivated reasoning.

"Two lineages" in rapid-succession is weird - but no better explained by two zoonoses (that left no hints in any animal population) than two lab-leaks.

Worobey et al's analysis is at the mercy of Chinese data sources, and even if all early cases were exclusively in the market, and even the live-animal section, that doesn't disprove lab origin.

It might slant things slightly against it - but when no other animals, anywhere from Laos to Wuhan, have revealed any of these supposed intermediate forms – that somehow zoonosed twice, only after reaching Wuhan, with a dangerous new viral feature Wuhan researchers had proposed splicing into bat viruses?!? – the slant remains very much in the other direction.

But you don't have to trust me; even the WHO now wants a better investigation of the prematurely-suppressed lab-origin possibility: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/09/who-sago-cov...

There's a field-wide omerta about gain-of-function risks – who wants to ruin their relationship with the NIH, & admit research that's pretty typical across many leaky labs worldwide, may have killed 20 million people (and counting)?

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#330

Post by themitigating »

rzz3 wrote: post #278
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…

Very well put. One thing I’d add, is that this entire debate regarding the lab leak hypothesis is entirely politicized, and I feel few people actually have legitimate scientific interest in discovering the truth. Either theory is perfectly viable given the evidence we currently have.

Is each theory equal in terms of probability based on the evidence? That's much more important than stating that both could be true
Post reply on HN