What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis? • Hacker News Board

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#361

Post by neaden » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:12 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #353

dpbriggs wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the lab-leak theory to be true, a "pandemicable" zoonotic virus (a VERY rare thing) has to somehow make it into a lab undetected. That's not a necessary condition and it's ridiculous to think that's the only hinge by which the hypothesis stands. Another far more plausible idea is that a mistake occurred somewhere and it was covered up. This has occurred before in authoritarian regimes before. An input to a mole…

> covered up. This has occurred before in authoritarian regimes before. To be fair, cover ups aren't exclusive to authoritarian regimes. Futhermore, in this case, The West seems to be willingly and shamelessly towing the Communist Party line. Can we add conspiracy to the smell being given off? Science should be obcessed with truth. Geez. Looks like science isn't immune to cover ups and conspiracy either. "What is the…

You know we know exactly who killed JFK and it's not controversial by anyone who seriously looks into it right?

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#362

Post by acdha » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:13 PM UTC

thereddaikon wrote: post #342

acdha wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel few people actually have legitimate scientific interest in discovering the truth. Either theory is perfectly viable given the evidence we currently have. This has been extensively investigated by scientists - it’d be a career making move if you could prove something that juicy! - but the problem is that the conclusions aren’t completely certain but rather comparing probability & the limited evidence to concl…

Scientists aren't going to prove lab leak one way or the other because the evidence isn't going to be in the virus itself. The for or against lies with the lab and the staff working there and the PRC is not going to allow an open and honest investigation to either prove or discount it. So unless it can be proven to have come from somewhere else, you are likely never going to settle whether it was lab leak.

They’re not going to have a video of it jumping, no, but they can look as probabilities as they’ve done. This has ruled out the bioweapon theory which got a lot of chatter a couple years ago, and it’s shown that zoonotic origin is heavily favored as the likely candidate. That doesn’t rule out something like a natural virus infecting a worker who made a lab safety error but it hasn’t made that look extremely likely, either.

For anyone honest, the big question here is how we prevent this from happening again. The conclusions seem pretty solid: be careful about pushing humans into wild animal populations, better surveillance for emerging diseases, and continue pouring money into research on things like rapid test and vaccine development so response times can shrink.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#363

Post by Iwan-Zotow » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:13 PM UTC

mikeyouse wrote: post #237

tomp wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Just think about what you're claiming here with this silly question. You honestly think Moderna patented a sequence multiple years ago, and then what, shared their research with the Chinese to unleash a virus and create demand for a vaccine they hadn't invented yet? Why in the world would they patent it before that? It's literally the dumbest nonsense. A more direct refutation though is that the authors were extremel…

Patent, by definition, is shared and public knowledge (but not a public ownership)

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#364

Post by ChemSpider » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

rdl wrote: post #144

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…

Airborne was always known; debate was droplet vs aerosol (particle size and thus dwell time/radius). Not really a binary distinction anyway; a matter of degree.

> Airborne was always known

In the early days China even claimed even that this thing is NOT contagious - and yet they already started isolating patients at this time.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#365

Post by dpbriggs » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #345

dpbriggs wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For the lab-leak theory to be true, a "pandemicable" zoonotic virus (a VERY rare thing) has to somehow make it into a lab undetected. That's not a necessary condition and it's ridiculous to think that's the only hinge by which the hypothesis stands. Another far more plausible idea is that a mistake occurred somewhere and it was covered up. This has occurred before in authoritarian regimes before. An input to a mole…

Of course it is a necessary condition. In order to leak from the lab, the virus has to be collected and be propagated in the lab. And all the rest isn't plausible if they knew the bat virus they had in their vials had the potential to cause a pandemic. But it must have had some rare "talent" that was as yet undiscovered. Otherwise nothing of the "lab leak" hypothesis makes sense. You can't "gain-of-function" just any…

I guess the disagreement is around the word "undetected". It's possible some failure was covered up and I trust the Chinese government to be capable enough to do that.

> virus has to be collected and be propagated in the lab

That's a weaker statement than the one I replied to. I'm referring to the how it's necessary that it needs to a "pandemicable" virus that enters a lab "undetected" and I guess leaves the lab "undetected". There's several possible ways the virus could have made it into Wuhan:

- Improper handling occurs somewhere in transporting the samples from bat caves (w/e) to the lab.

- Improper handling of samples in the lab.

- Improper disposal of samples in the lab.

- Entering a more speculative area; bat samples are used in experiments and improper handling or disposal occurs.

- Deeper into speculation: Improper handling/disposal of viruses used in gain of function research.

And when any of the above occurs, use the state's staggering power to cover it up.

> You can interpret a molecular clock or a phylogenetic tree qualitatively

I'm sure that could work but I imagine the error bars are quite wide as otherwise that's definitive proof and we wouldn't be discussing this online.

> unless you think the Wuhan lab tested the Virus in Laos

Nice attempt at absurd rhetoric. Strengthens the argument doesn't it?

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#366

Post by handmodel » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #256

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.

As someone in tech, what bothers me is all the attention AI gets for possible ethical problems, while biologists are doing some pretty scary experiments with potentially large-scale negative consequences, and they've gotten relatively little attention.

It's also very weird that the same type of people who normally talk about corporations/governments covering up pollutants do not talk about how many people could die from a potential lab leak.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#367

Post by Tycho » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

“What happened to it” - as far as I can tell it has passed into common acknowledgement.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#368

Post by ChemSpider » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:17 PM UTC

robonerd wrote: post #288

cbb330 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taipei, the capitol of Taiwan, is not a Chinese entity. This is a lab leak from a Taiwanese lab.

Taiwan is Chinese, but they're not communist Chinese. They are the Republic of China, not the People's Republic of China.

Most Taiwanese do not see themselves as Chinese.

> Republic of China

Most Taiwanese would love to change that name, but China is threating war if they do.

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#369

Post by subsubzero » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

Here are two "damning" articles about the lab leak theory, for some reason these articles were not widely seen but highly recommend them if you are searching for the truth around the origin of covid:

https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...

and:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/the-virus-hunting-no...

Re: What happened to the lab-leak hypothesis?

#370

Post by voakbasda » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #109

voakbasda wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If scientists do not publish their unbiased results and instead bend their results to fit personal or public expectation, their credentials should be revoked in the name of science itself. There is no greater crime against humanity that to conceal or compromise scientific truth.

Let us know when you have an "unambiguous truth detector" so we can start to revoke credentials. In the meantime, let's understand that scientists frequently allow their personal biases to leak into their papers.

I’m not talking about absolute truth. I am pointing my finger at those “scientists” that falsify or cherry-pick data sets, do not publish results that contradict their organization’s agenda, and similarly commit flagrant acts of dishonesty.