The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#81

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

kirse wrote: post #38

i_cannot_hack wrote: post #9

> A Norwegian virologist has made claims about the non-natural origins of the new coronavirus. These claims were, reportedly, in an earlier draft of the paper, and Dr Sørensen has since repeated them to Norwegian press. > The final version of the research paper, which has undergone peer review and been accepted for publication in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics Discovery, doesn’t actually make any claims about whe…

The scientific community widely agrees One has to wonder how a "Fact Check" site can make an assertion like this without any provided list of references. What exactly does "widely agree" even mean? Was there some sort of statistical polling they did to establish that? Exactly what percentage of the scientific community constitutes "widely" anyways? In fact, this website appears to enjoy using the word "widely" within…

[deleted]

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#82

Post by newacct583 » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:09 AM UTC

autokad wrote: post #37

newacct583 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right." Isn't that the whole point of science? Big claims require big proof. What standard are you proposing be used instead? Or are you leaning on the "better" in that sentence in the sense of coercion? As in, you're saying that arguments without overwhelming evidence that contradict established consensus…

the papers make a lot of specific arguments. if you have evidence against those arguments, you can say this point is wrong, here is the evidence against it, therefore that claim is likely wrong. Thats science. Your method comes off as: thats not the consensus, thus you are wrong.

You're missing the point of "consensus". The value of having a scientific consensus of trusted sources is precisely that we don't have to all individually read random conspiracy nonsense and come up with counterarguments on our own. We can trust the experts.

So if you come by with a theory that isn't supported by those experts, the burden is on YOU to convince people, not me.

Now I know you're going to come right back and tell me why, this time, after the last thousand tries, the consensus really is wrong and the conspiracy nuts are actually believing in a REAL conspiracy this time. And again I'll rely on my general sense of statistics to tell me who to trust.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#83

Post by slaymaker1907 » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:10 AM UTC

bnjms wrote: post #14

I’m open to this idea but I cannot imagine a goal for this line of research. It doesn’t appear to benefit anyone.

If it did come from a lab, said country might be on the hook for reparations due to damage caused by the virus...

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#84

Post by RockIslandLine » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:10 AM UTC

abeppu wrote: post #34

dagav wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least if it was someone's "fault" we could push for reparations

At this point, who could actually pay reparations on a scale that would be even within an order of magnitude of the damage done?

For certain definitions of "pay", any nation with a fiat currency could certainly place a number into a spreadsheet.

Making that number mean anything might take a while.But we could certainly write a permanent bond and put it onto the books.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#85

Post by strstr » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:12 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #30

maest wrote: post #11

This is a really big claim, so some background checking: The paper was published in the Quarterly Review of Biophysics[0] (this accepted version is materially different from the original link posted here). Only thing I could find about Birger Sorensen's was his Linkedin page [1a] and the Immunor page where he's listed as the Chairman [1b]. Angus Dagleish looks legit, although it's notable that he did stand for Parlia…

Why do the background checking? Why not just consider the arguments on their merits alone? That's what science is.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Doubly so when there is motivated reasoning behind the argument.

If a pharma company came out with a paper saying “we’re almost done developing a cure for cancer!”, people would be rightly skeptical. Lethal manmade viruses are less ridiculous than that, but I’d still classify them as very surprising. Motivated reasoning for those with political ends should be unsurprising when it comes to discussing whether covid is manmade.

Checking background/credentials is due diligence to ensure you aren’t being duped. I wish the world exclusive operated on good faith argumentation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#86

Post by Gatsky » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:12 AM UTC

This is very unlikely. The technology to design a virus reliably just isn't there.

What is much more likely is that a lab was studying coronavirus isolates from animals, and had a failure of containment. This has happened multiple times before (eg. with small pox).

But even then it is a moot point, because there is no way China, or any country for that matter, would admit they unleashed a global pandemic. Can you imagine the fall out?

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#87

Post by newacct583 » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:13 AM UTC

tgflynn wrote: post #60

newacct583 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right." Isn't that the whole point of science? Big claims require big proof. What standard are you proposing be used instead? Or are you leaning on the "better" in that sentence in the sense of coercion? As in, you're saying that arguments without overwhelming evidence that contradict established consensus…

> Isn't that the whole point of science? No, Carl Sagan's famous "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is certainly not the whole point of science. At best it's merely a useful heuristic for judging how much effort to put into researching a particular claim. Trying to use that argument as the basis for science is highly problematic because how do you know what constitutes an "extraordinary claim" ? Cl…

You're picking on my hyperbole, not my point. I agree with everything you wrote. It's not relevant to this topic.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#88

Post by causality0 » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:13 AM UTC

Do viruses closely related to SARS-Cov-2 do all the "unusual" things it does? Do they cause brain damage, reproductive damage, anosmia without congestion, strokes, and unusual clotting activity? If not, I would be reassured by someone explaining to me how a natural pathogen could pick up all these features at the same time.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#89

Post by akimball » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:14 AM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #7

Lets throw them a bone and say they're right, what do we do next? What actions do or can we take? Secure the labs? Shouldn't that be done regardless?

You can more correctly assess the credibility of counterclaims, and evaluate how they are motivated to disinform about vitally important issues. Similarly, if they are wrong, you can evaluate how their motivations caused them to mislead about such an issue. Knowing the truth is almost always useful. Some people even define truth in terms of the usefulness of a given belief.

Also, if they are right, you can press to find out whether the originator of the pathogen simultaneously developed antigens for their internal use, or for later sale, and can better make the case for regulatory regimes which are better equipped to prevent such events. If it was developed by a state actor, peers can exert pressure and international law to circumscribe the potential for future harms, and the political processes internal to the state will become empowered to make internal changes to prevent harms to the people and the state such as result. It is much more difficult to disempower a successful deceiver than an unsuccessful one.

Re: The evidence which suggests that Covid-19 is not a naturally evolved virus [pdf]

#90

Post by unishark » Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 12:15 AM UTC

lemmsjid wrote: post #32

etangent wrote: post #2

That evidence looks weak IMO, but it's frustrating that the current culture in science isn't "present the best argument for your position no matter how crazy it is" but rather "your arguments better agree with the established consensus unless you have overwhelming evidence that you are right."

I think there's a two way problem. The current state of public discourse on science in the U.S. is very skewed from scientific consensus. For example a YouGov poll found that 49% of Americans think that the virus originated in a Wuhan lab. This kind of skew between public perception and scientific consensus can create a siege mentality, because it's easy to find someone who has been convinced by some media subculture…

Anti-vaxxers is a pretty small movement according to polls, compared to the attention they've been getting (ten percentish). And it's certainly not just a US thing. More people probably believe in astrology.

I'm not a virologist (nor a conspiracy theorist, by the way), but every time I read articles about the origin of covid being settled, I feel like the writer is trying to push an agenda. Yes they give perfectly sound logical reasoning, sure, but that's all it is. The counter view obviously will continue to be driven by the location of the origin.

Edit: and by the way, the autism-caused-by-vaccines theory is not solely the result of a bad study getting too much attention. It is similarly the result of people making conclusions from big coincidences. In this case the onset of autism (at least the age when symptoms get bad) is commonly around the same age that children get vaccinated. The study didn't just make that idea up, they were trying to validate a belief that was already held relatively widely.