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

Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#41

Post by mikeyouse »

gensym wrote: post #40
mikeyouse wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's only if you restrict it to H5N1 instead of looking at the history of Influenza A and things like the Spanish Flu, which was the most deadly disease in human history and derived from a mutated bird flu. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp058281 Even still, H5N1 has repeatedly infected humans in the wild... the most famous case in Hong Kong infecting 18 people and killing 6 of those. So you can…

That would be the case if GoF research was necessary to defend against these viruses, but that’s not the case. AFAIK, GoF research played no part in the development of vaccines and treatments for Covid.

Sure, but it took over a year, trillions of dollars of economic disruption and millions of lives to develop the vaccines — its all balance of probabilities and costs.

Some of the proposed research that was GoF adjacent (that was never actually performed) was to develop pseudo viruses more similar to hACE strains that would evoke an immune response in horseshoe bats, effectively vaccinating them. Would the small, but certain, risk of an accident from that research been worth it if it could’ve averted the last 3 years and every future sarbecovirus pandemic?

It still might be the case that we shouldn’t risk GoF - but the simplistic “hurr durr, greedy virologists just want their grant money and don’t understand the risk” takes are childishly simplistic. There is nobody on earth more attuned to the risk of pandemics than the people doing this research, it’s why they’re doing the research.

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#42

Post by scheme271 »

LatteLazy wrote: post #11
candiddevmike wrote: post #4

I truthfully do not see the value (vs risk) in this kind of research. Humanity is too careless to do this kind of thing safely. Figure out better ways to model this in software instead, IM (uninformed) O.

As long as china and other countries refuse to operate sanitary food chains, the risk they represent will be 1000s of times higher than a high security lab. That is why so many zoonotic diseases come from such places and so few from the rest of the world. Don't "strain out a fly and swallow a camel"...

Wet markets have a pretty good reason for existing. If you don't have a reliable cold chain and aren't sure about refrigeration, then keeping animals alive as long as possible and then butchering them just before you need to use the meat keeps the chances of food poisoning low.

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#43

Post by scheme271 »

khazhoux wrote: post #37
giraffe_lady wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Why is that racist? It may be inaccurate or unproven , but that doesn't make it racist. Isn't the leading theory that COVID-19 originated/spread from Wuhan's seafood market (with poor sanitation standards)?

If you don't understand the reasons for why things are done a certain way and just assume that Chinese or whoever prefer to keep unsanitary conditions, then you won't solve the problem. Wet markets reduce the incidence of food poisoning by minimizing the time raw meat is kept at room temperature. If refrigeration isn't readily available, this is probably the best solution. You can find wet markets throughout the world, it's not just limited top China and Asia.

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#44

Post by khazhoux »

scheme271 wrote: post #43
khazhoux wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that racist? It may be inaccurate or unproven , but that doesn't make it racist. Isn't the leading theory that COVID-19 originated/spread from Wuhan's seafood market (with poor sanitation standards)?

If you don't understand the reasons for why things are done a certain way and just assume that Chinese or whoever prefer to keep unsanitary conditions, then you won't solve the problem. Wet markets reduce the incidence of food poisoning by minimizing the time raw meat is kept at room temperature. If refrigeration isn't readily available, this is probably the best solution. You can find wet markets throughout the worl…

But I didn't say people "preferred" to be unsanitary, and it doesn't actually matter why things are done one way or another.

COVID-19 is believed to have originated in a live-animal market in Wuhan. I would argue (and forgive me if this is racist) that a market where some vendor sells diseased animals as food that will kill 7 million people (and shut down the world for almost two years) qualifies as "unsanitary."

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#45

Post by AbrahamParangi »

bboygravity wrote: post #10
candiddevmike wrote: post #4

I truthfully do not see the value (vs risk) in this kind of research. Humanity is too careless to do this kind of thing safely. Figure out better ways to model this in software instead, IM (uninformed) O.

There's a chance that being more informed might help form a different opinion more aligned with most informed people.

If only information granted wisdom

Re: Controversial experiments that could make bird flu more risky to resume (2019)

#47

Post by kbelder »

bboygravity wrote: post #10
candiddevmike wrote: post #4

I truthfully do not see the value (vs risk) in this kind of research. Humanity is too careless to do this kind of thing safely. Figure out better ways to model this in software instead, IM (uninformed) O.

There's a chance that being more informed might help form a different opinion more aligned with most informed people.

I once heard an ad sponsored by the American Podiatric Medical Association that listed the benefits of going to your podiatrist, and concluded with a recommendation that everyone should get a podiatric examination once per year, just to maintain foot health.

I'm sure that seemed intensely reasonable to all the heavily informed podiatrists that were involved.

Post reply on HN