Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis • Hacker News Board

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#491

Post by danenania » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:00 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #173

pyinstallwoes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuke Game Theory all over again, with AGI to add too!

The fundamental difference with nuclear theory is that nukes don't self-assemble more nukes. The exponential replication of biological pandemics means there are very different optima. Whether that's in favor of GoF or anti-GoF, I can't say. It's a tradeoff between {increased risk of pandemic & more prepared for pandemic} vs {decreased risk of pandemic & less prepared for pandemic}. A sane response probably means we s…

Is there any concrete evidence that gain-of-function research actually increases preparedness for pandemics? It seems like the benefits are all still very hypothetical? Considering it would need to prevent a massive pandemic just to break even at this point, perhaps it's time to throw in the towel.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#492

Post by igouy » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:02 PM UTC

WithinReason wrote: post #488

igouy wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> … no evidence that the epidemic had no lab involvement… "So you simply cannot prove general claims that are negative claims -- one cannot prove that ghosts do not exist; one cannot prove that leprechauns too do not exist. One simply cannot prove a negative and general claim." https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_re... . What would you accept as evidence of "no lab involvement"?

> What would you accept as evidence of "no lab involvement"? Read the last sentence.

You seem to want to play a guessing game.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#493

Post by danenania » Tue, Sep 06, 2022, 11:11 PM UTC

JaceLightning wrote: post #238

seydor wrote: post #6

Well I hope that at least the next lab-made pandemic will insert some beneficial mutations to humanity. In a way, the lab-leak hypothesis is comforting, because it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease, despite the facts of modern life, record human population and rates of travel. If it is not lab-made, then nature may do this again soon with another vir…

or... if it's a lab-leak then evil governments know they can create world-wide devastating pandemics.

The main deterrent here is that it's too easy for the leaders of the evil government to end up being infected too. Even if you target a virus at specific genetics or make a secret vaccine, it's impossible to predict how it might evolve once it's out in the wild. At least given current technology, viruses can't be controlled well enough to make good weapons.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#494

Post by haswell » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 12:43 AM UTC

bialpio wrote: post #470

seydor wrote: post #6

Well I hope that at least the next lab-made pandemic will insert some beneficial mutations to humanity. In a way, the lab-leak hypothesis is comforting, because it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease, despite the facts of modern life, record human population and rates of travel. If it is not lab-made, then nature may do this again soon with another vir…

> (...) it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease (...) I think I'm less optimistic than you in this matter. There's at least one counter-example to that statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu that has the same order of magnitude of deaths as COVID-19, but in a world where population was ~4x smaller and I'd expect less mobile / interconnecte…

I do think this is an appropriate counter-example, but I’m curious how much modern medicine would change the impact (and preserve the case for optimism).

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#495

Post by breck » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 12:51 AM UTC

empathy_m wrote: post #219

breck wrote: post #162

This is a very simple question. You just need 1 CSV file. A CSV file with a list of all BioWeaponsLabs and their coordinates. Then for every point on earth compute distance from nearest BioWeaponsLabs. This will give you a heatmap for pr(labLeak|pandemic). Few hrs work. Right? Has anyone done this yet?

Are you looking for a diagram like this one? https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.abm4454/asset/75... ( https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454 )

No (but interesting link, thanks). I want a CSV with locations of biolabs and historical locations of patient zeros.

Given that a novel outbreak of any infectious disease occurred, what is the probability that it would be within N miles of a bioweapons lab? If you set N large enough, the Pr goes to 1.

An analogy. Given that there was a housefire of a random natural origin, what is the probability that it would have begun 1 inch from an overloaded socket?

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#496

Post by credit_guy » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 1:03 AM UTC

igouy wrote: post #476

credit_guy wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some evidence: if you fart in an elevator, it stinks, but if you fart outdoors, not so much. Viruses, as opposed to farts, don't smell, but otherwise they are similar. If someone coughs outdoors, the aerosols containing the viral particles just spread around and soon their concentration becomes negligible. If someone coughs, or just breathes indoors, the aerosols spread, but if the space is not very large, the…

> Overall, the simplest explanation… "New studies say Wuhan market is the only ‘plausible’ source of COVID-19 pandemic" https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-07-26/new-studies... “I was quite convinced of the lab leak myself until we dove into this very carefully and looked at it much closer,” Andersen said. “Actually, the data points to this particular market.”

I read your link, and except for words, I see not explanation why the market hypothesis is more likely. Just "I thought that, and now I think this".

The rest of the article says that the reports were deemed by the WHO to be "inconclusive". And what else do you expect? Conclusive evidence for the lab-leak hypothesis should be hyper-ultra-uber strong, because its consequences could potentially be requests for trillions of dollars of reparations. Evidence for the market hypothesis doesn't need to be as strong, this alternative would make quite a lot of people quite happy, but for some reason no clear evidence was found.

In the article they claim the possibility for contagion via frozen food was deemed "possible". This is total BS. Covid is an airborne disease. We've all lived for more than 2 years with it, and most HN readers probably read for thousands of hours about Covid. The claim that you can get Covid from food is preposterous. Of course, if you intentionally want to get it, you can get it, so one cannot rule it out, but deeming this "possible" is clearly just based on politics. It should be deemed "possible, but highly improbable".

So, no, I don't see a plausible scenario where the wildlife is the source of the disease. I can see a lab worker contracting the virus in the lab, and then going to lunch to the market, and then the disease spreading from there. But not from wildlife, because there were no documented cases of live bats or live pangolins being sold in that market.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#497

Post by kcplate » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 1:08 AM UTC

caseysoftware wrote: post #258

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…

> 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. The real black eye for science is the refusal to consider a line of inquiry because the answer might be unacceptable.

> The real black eye for science is the refusal to consider a line of inquiry because the answer might be unacceptable.

Yes, but this is what happens when science and politics occupy the same bed, as they did for COVID. Politics is what made certain answers unacceptable.

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#498

Post by 8note » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 1:23 AM UTC

bialpio wrote: post #470

seydor wrote: post #6

Well I hope that at least the next lab-made pandemic will insert some beneficial mutations to humanity. In a way, the lab-leak hypothesis is comforting, because it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease, despite the facts of modern life, record human population and rates of travel. If it is not lab-made, then nature may do this again soon with another vir…

> (...) it means that nature with its own means did not manage to manufacture such a highly-transmissive disease (...) I think I'm less optimistic than you in this matter. There's at least one counter-example to that statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu that has the same order of magnitude of deaths as COVID-19, but in a world where population was ~4x smaller and I'd expect less mobile / interconnecte…

The Spanish flu also happened in a much less medically advanced society, that didn't understand how viruses work

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#499

Post by 8note » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 1:29 AM UTC

chasil wrote: post #433

brnaftr361 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it was the neolithic, and in particular animal husbandry that was the culprit rather than simply urbanization which was a later emergence. And when you contrast new world peoples who had very few animals to domesticate, there's only one disease thought to have originated there: syphilis . This is despite the records of highly concentrated populations in various regions in the New World.

"In the world our human immune system evolved in hundreds of thousands of years ago, infectious diseases could not become a major problem because, with a few exceptions, when you survive an infectious disease, you usually don’t get it again. Either it kills you or it leaves you completely immune to it for the rest of your life. For the vast majority of human history our species lived in small tribes that were spread…

This is not convincing.

Our immune systems were evolving 100 thousand years ago, and they still are now.

If we weren't able to handle new diseases, everyone would have died from covid, not some percent of a percent. Our immune systems are very very capable for handling pathogens

Re: Covid: Summary of lab-origin hypothesis

#500

Post by kcplate » Wed, Sep 07, 2022, 1:31 AM UTC

fzeroracer wrote: post #378

pnf wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically said that no conspiracy is required, that the mechanism is baked into the system. As for the rest of the world, all the information is NOT accessible and public. Far from it. China is notoriously secretive and the US bio-security industry certainly isn't more forthcoming. Second, who says there isn't a control mechanism for non-US research science? Where does funding come from outside the US and how is…

Everything you're doing and alleging is conspiracy. That there is some greater will censoring anything that would reveal it was a lab leak. There's no point in arguing with you because anything can be contorted to fit this narrative you've crafted to fit everything neatly into this conspiracy. In reality hiding something like this on a global scale is quite literally impossible. That's simply a fact of how informatio…

> It was pushed by the most powerful position in America

And as so had likely had access to information none of us have. It’s also a fact that some US government agencies were at odds with the president. Additionally, political factions were pretty much at odds as well.

So no matter which path you take to be true, someone within government was either telling the truth…or not. And when it’s not…its by definition a conspiracy.