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

Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 631 posts

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#341

Post by PathOfEclipse »

gilbetron wrote: post #217
PathOfEclipse wrote: post #184

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…

Are you willfully trying to propagate this idea? It seems like you must be, because there is a deluge of studies showing the effectiveness of masks - and the nuance and complexity of that statement. Throwing on a thin cloth mask that doesn't seal well doesn't do much of anything. Putting on an N95, well-fitted mask definitely helps tremendously. That you think there are "exactly zero" studies indicates you aren't eve…

Your response should be a comedic parody, yet, sadly, you are actually being serious. It's a depressing reflection on the state of the world.

I said there are zero RCTs, a type of study that can establish causation, and you respond, "there are lots of mask studies! You just aren't looking!" Your response literally contradicts nothing that I said. I even linked a BMJ-published opinion lamenting the fact that there are a lot of mask studies, but they are mostly low-quality. I'm going to guess you didn't bother reading it.

Not to mention that you tell me there is a deluge of studies showing the effectiveness of masks, but you can't even be bothered to cite one yourself. Lastly, you accuse me of sitting in an echo chamber, an accusation that is beyond baseless. What else would you be willing to accuse me of without a shred of evidence?

Your response is just another example that people don't follow the scientific method; they are driven by ideology and tribalism.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#342

Post by rhodorhoades »

pelasaco wrote: post #236
spywaregorilla wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we still fight with basic stuff like vaccine, treatment What exactly are you hoping for?

less media, better organization, clear strategy, more transparency and honesty. We saw what we cannot do well. We suffered with many gaps and did so many mistakes that shouldn't be repeated.

What was showed by the government is that we don’t have transparency and honesty. The head of the CDC essentially said “masks don’t work”, then came out and said “ just kidding, they work but we needed to lie to you so you wouldn’t panic buy all the masks. Go ahead and go panic buy all the masks now”

Americans don’t like to be talked at, they like to be talked to. As a country, we want all the information but we want the ability to choose what to do with that information.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#343

Post by effie »

BryantD wrote: post #292
glofish wrote: post #114

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…

This doesn’t convince me because we have a recent covid-related example of scientists making a significant mistake and admitting it: namely, the primary means of transmission. At the beginning of the pandemic, the scientific community argued that transmission was surface-based. As more data came in, it became evident that transmission was aerosol-related. This was a huge mistake with significant implications, but nob…

Admitting scientists were wrong in their claims on science does not hurt societal standing of science or funding. The cost is very low, everybody expects scientists to be wrong on science from time to time.

Admitting scientists may have caused the pandemic is on a whole another level. Societal status and funding may be pulled. The cost is so huge it makes relevant scientists unlikely to admit any of the sort.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#344

Post by shusaku »

tehjoker wrote: post #265

I'm on a mobile device and feel terrible right now do I'm not going to find the sources, but aren't there several papers out there right now from Brazil, Italy, and perhaps Spain showing detection of SARS2 in samples from Nov. 2019? That would wildly change our interpretation of at least COVID's geographic origin.

A lot of that discussion seems to have vanished from the internet. Maybe it’s because people are less interested in talking about their strange cold back in the fall of ‘19, but it could also be that the evidence remains slim enough that contaminated samples is parsimonious.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#345

Post by jimmydorry »

notahacker wrote: post #224
jcims wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't a monolith but there is a pretty large overlap between the set of scientists that would be negatively impacted by major policy changes in virus research and those who's opinion is considered useful in the discussion of possible origins of SARS-CoV-2.

There is also a pretty large overlap between the set of scientists who would be positively impacted by major policy changes in virus research. "We need more money to research coronaviruses because we can't trust our counterparts in China" and "Funding should be restricted to labs in $homecountry with better biosecurity controls" are fairly natural conclusions to draw from discovering it was Chinese error, and "this i…

This kind of research was already banned in America, which is why American money was funelled towards WIV research grants to continue the research with less oversight and off American soil [1].

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699

>This body did give money to an organisation that collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

>That organisation - the US-based EcoHealth Alliance - was awarded a grant in 2014 to look into possible coronaviruses from bats.

>EcoHealth received $3.7m from the NIH, $600,000 of which was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

>In 2019, its project was renewed for another five years, but then pulled by the Trump administration in April 2020 following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic.

>Senator Paul believes the research did qualify as "gain-of-function" research, and referred to two academic papers by the Chinese institute, one from 2015 (written together with the University of North Carolina), and another from 2017.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#346

Post by nullc »

phkahler wrote: post #150
scotchmi_st wrote: post #45

If you click on the link in the thread, there's an editor's note clarifying that this paper is being used to prop up dodgy claims, for which there's no evidence. The main issue I have with the 'lab leak' theory is that I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. Hitchens' razor applies- what can be stated without evidence can be as easily dismissed without evidence. I personally don't see any issue with the idea…

I think it's important to set aside the question of weather Covid was made in a lab. For the sake of argument let's say it was not. There were proposals to do the kind of experimental work that would have created a virus very much like Covid-19. Those who wrote the proposal and shopped it around for funding probably considered it relatively harmless to do, both in a lab, and should it accidentally get out (it's just…

Yeah! exactly.

If by some weird accident of history the research wasn't the actual cause of the virus-- it's just an accident. The problem was that we setup a situation where if it wasn't human originated, it's only a fluke.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#347

Post by gilbetron »

nostrebored wrote: post #307
gilbetron wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willfully trying to propagate this idea? It seems like you must be, because there is a deluge of studies showing the effectiveness of masks - and the nuance and complexity of that statement. Throwing on a thin cloth mask that doesn't seal well doesn't do much of anything. Putting on an N95, well-fitted mask definitely helps tremendously. That you think there are "exactly zero" studies indicates you aren't eve…

Right, and fitted N95s are not safe for prolonged wear. There are exactly zero RCTs that suggest that masks are effective, the parent comment is correct. The single RCT that claims effectiveness was on hamsters. Completely missing from pro-mask discourse is potential impact of large-scale masking on children. Developmental delays are starting to pop up, and previous public health advocates for masking are starting to…

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

Your first two statements are just wrong, shockingly so after over 2 years where you could have educated yourself and decided not to.

Your last statement is definitely something we need to look into, but I think the development delays are probably minimal (speaking as a parent of a kid that wore masks at a critical age), but I think the social isolation was far more significant.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#348

Post by gilbetron »

PathOfEclipse wrote: post #341
gilbetron wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willfully trying to propagate this idea? It seems like you must be, because there is a deluge of studies showing the effectiveness of masks - and the nuance and complexity of that statement. Throwing on a thin cloth mask that doesn't seal well doesn't do much of anything. Putting on an N95, well-fitted mask definitely helps tremendously. That you think there are "exactly zero" studies indicates you aren't eve…

Your response should be a comedic parody, yet, sadly, you are actually being serious. It's a depressing reflection on the state of the world. I said there are zero RCTs, a type of study that can establish causation, and you respond, "there are lots of mask studies! You just aren't looking!" Your response literally contradicts nothing that I said. I even linked a BMJ-published opinion lamenting the fact that there are…

First google hit, not difficult: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02457-y

Again, you have an agenda that is at odds with reality, please stop, it is literally hurting people.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#349

Post by robomartin »

sinecure wrote: post #274

I think covid's lasting impact will be one of vastly growing mistrust in the political and scientific organizations that society looks to for guidance. From the CDC's ever changing guidelines, the liability-free, fast tracked vaccine that doesn't actually mitigate transmission, the labeling of media pushed medical hypothesis as "science" and any debate as heresy, the effortless militarization of common citizens to so…

No post body was provided.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#350

Post by pwinnski »

rhodorhoades wrote: post #315

I don’t know if it was initial propaganda or what, but literally right before COVID became a thing, there’s was a couple news articles that popped up on HN saying there has been a lab leak from wuhan and the government is locking down the area. Three weeks later there’s this giant pandemic. I remember telling my wife about it in December before Christmas but now I can’t find any articles dating back to that time. My…

According to hn.algolia.com, the first mention of anything like you describe is from Jan 8, 2020[0], which isn't before Christmas 2019. The first US case was announced two weeks later, and "this giant pandemic" came a bit after that.

I think your memory might be slightly off, although in completely understandable ways. Placing events on a personal timeline can be difficult.

0. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21989913

Post reply on HN