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

CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 868 posts

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#851

Post by PinkiesBrain »

Fomite wrote: post #426
oa335 wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please share the reasons why you are skeptical?

A few reasons, though as I note in another comment, I'm not an expert in spillover events, my area of interest kicks in about a week later. So there's a few: 1) People I trust are skeptical, including people who are opposed to gain of function research. I've found Angela Rasmussen to be one of the better voices in terms of discussing the evidence for a natural origin, but she's far from the only one. 2) We have had t…

Is Rasmussen really in favour of a GoF ban and destroying the academic value of the background of the majority of her professional friends in the field? Cause I can't really find her calling for a ban, quite the opposite really.

This is the problem with virology, it IS GoF. Expecting virologists to be objective in this is expecting the impossible, like expecting the WHO to apologize for sending Daszak as head of the fact finding mission. They were either THAT incompetent or THAT self interested in maintaing GoF/virology, damn the truth.

I suspect virologists still see themselves as guards on the wall and that we can't handle the truth. Which we already know from the early emails is how they thought early on, why should I assume their propensity for dishonesty has changed?

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#852

Post by timr »

otherme123 wrote: post #628
timr wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Evidence suggest that patient zero was someone in the Wuhan market, around november 2019, and the SARS-CoV-2 genetic "signatures" where all found in wild animals for sale in that market. You're just repeating the conclusions of papers that made ridiculous leaps of logic based on circumstantial evidence. For example [1], which is the likely source of the argument you're (mis-)remembering, bases this conclusion on: 1…

Your guessing of my sources are wrong, thus your message is a strawman fallacy from beginning to end. There are studies pre SARS-CoV-2 about coronavirus in natural environments (like bat caves), and they found motifs that we found also in SARS-CoV-2. Zoonotic infections are very common and specially for coronavirus, so it should be our first guess unless overwhelming evidence shows that the virus was originated in a…

Well, I cited a canonical paper making the argument you're advancing, so if it's not that, then...

As for the rest of your comment -- oy, talk about a straw man fallacy. There's absolutely nothing I said that requires the false dichotomy you've presented between H0 and H1 (i.e. there are other plausible hypotheses that aren't as extreme as the ones you've presented). Also, I don't "accept" H0. I just can't rule it out.

> H0 should be the most easy explanation, which is a zoonosis that has happened before thousands of times, and for which we have also evidence

Neither hypothesis is easy (i.e. likely). Natural, human-optimized zoonosis is incredibly rare in viruses. Making humanized viruses in a lab, starting from natural viruses, is actually straightforward. But when one of the world centers for doing that kind of work, on very similar coronaviruses, was right there in Wuhan...

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#853

Post by Digory »

Glyptodon wrote: post #491
Digory wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. It fits well with the Anglosphere’s concept of compensible negligence. China had a duty to run the lab safely, it breached that duty, and so China is responsible for the harms and losses caused by its negligence. Missouri actually filed suit against China, and it is set to go to trial next week. It will be interesting to watch. If Missouri were to get a judgement for all the costs created by the virus, it coul…

What I don't really get is why that concept doesn't apply to both the wet market and the lab leak scenarios.

Most people grasp the reasonableness standard for running a disease lab: you were negligent if the diseases break containment, because lab standards should be in place to prevent that obvious risk.

Under the wet market scenario, it's not instinctively clear to me what was unreasonable about the practices of the vendors at the market. Does selling bats more likely than not result in spreading disease? Or selling bats in proximity to pangolins? It seems like the vendors were doing the same thing vendors have done for millennia, not doing something unusually or obviously substandard.

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#854

Post by drewbug01 »

rob_c wrote: post #847
drewbug01 wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend, this is not productive or rational discourse. It’s certainly not empathetic. There is no place for it on this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in a different community, one more amenable to listening to the “facts” that you’ve shared.

I think it is as your engaging which means you'll be more likely to listen to statistics next time they're presented to you with a "non immediately obvious" outcome. If it were fruitless you wouldn't have engaged from an aggressive stance and I wouldn't be telling you why your wrong. Cognitive dissodence does hurt when it breaks but it's all for the better :)

You haven’t made any compelling case about anything, changed my mind, or altered my behavior. But if it helps you sleep at night to believe that, then go ahead.

For what it’s worth: I continued to engage because I used to be like you - argumentative, hyper assured of my own intelligence, and certain I was correct about everything. I wish someone had pointed out earlier that I was being a massive asshole.

Hence, trying to politely engage with you a bit. I feel like it’s the kind thing to do.

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#855

Post by rayiner »

camgunz wrote: post #841
rayiner wrote: post #838

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like many Trump quotes, this isn’t an “ink blot” test: > I don’t blame (Dick Cheney) for sticking with his daughter, but his daughter is a very dumb individual, very dumb. She is a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK? Let's see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face. She has a rifle, and there are nine other guns pointed at…

I know I skipped my usual edit sweep and my post above was pretty wordy as a result, but TL;DR I think giving her a rifle fits with Trump's pattern of "say it without saying it". If you don't agree, I'm fine conceding this is about combat. Trump is still dehumanizing and advocating for violence against his political enemies. The reason other politicians avoid this kind of rhetoric is they don't want to take the polit…

I think the “pattern” is that Trump speaks plainly instead of using corporate HR speak and people read whatever they want into that. But regardless, we shouldn’t be more upset about how Trump is criticizing the war monger than we are about the war mongering.

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#856

Post by meiraleal »

rayiner wrote: post #855
camgunz wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I skipped my usual edit sweep and my post above was pretty wordy as a result, but TL;DR I think giving her a rifle fits with Trump's pattern of "say it without saying it". If you don't agree, I'm fine conceding this is about combat. Trump is still dehumanizing and advocating for violence against his political enemies. The reason other politicians avoid this kind of rhetoric is they don't want to take the polit…

I think the “pattern” is that Trump speaks plainly instead of using corporate HR speak and people read whatever they want into that. But regardless, we shouldn’t be more upset about how Trump is criticizing the war monger than we are about the war mongering.

Trump threatened to invade and/or take over Denmark, Mexico, Canada and Panama.

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#857

Post by lazyeye »

Jerrrry wrote: post #754
lazyeye wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe these agencies may have other kinds of intelligence data such as satellite photos of the (empty?) Wuhan Institute of Virology carpark, spikes in mobile phone activity in the area etc. So assessments are made on more than just biological principles.

The hospital was full. The institute would never be full. There is no "bring your child to work day" in China. Weird conflation, unlikely... uunless you mean to muddy the waters and sow dis-information.

I would argue you are sowing disinfo and I honestly dont know what point you are trying to make. Spikes and/or significant reductions in activity as indicated by external data sources, and particular the timing thereof, will obviously be very useful for determining the sequence of events.

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#858

Post by rob_c »

drewbug01 wrote: post #854
rob_c wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is as your engaging which means you'll be more likely to listen to statistics next time they're presented to you with a "non immediately obvious" outcome. If it were fruitless you wouldn't have engaged from an aggressive stance and I wouldn't be telling you why your wrong. Cognitive dissodence does hurt when it breaks but it's all for the better :)

You haven’t made any compelling case about anything, changed my mind, or altered my behavior. But if it helps you sleep at night to believe that, then go ahead. For what it’s worth: I continued to engage because I used to be like you - argumentative, hyper assured of my own intelligence, and certain I was correct about everything. I wish someone had pointed out earlier that I was being a massive asshole. Hence, tryin…

You are choosing to engage which either causes you to double down or reject change.

I'm going to engage in good faith still again and see if we can get past the point of it being uncomfortable for you.

I made a statement aligned with the indisputable reality that COVID did not lead to huge amounts of deaths among the healthy working age population.

Ironically the USA gives us a very good example of this. Their jab rates are close to 50% across multiple age brackets. If COVID was really really bad we would expect to see many more Americans dead than say in the UK where the jab rate hit >80% in most age groups.

This is not a statement about treatment efficacy or safety. This is a statement that we should be expecting to see many more dead without treatment if the treatment were essential comparing 2 relatively comparable subs populations.

This result given the population sizes can also be deemed to be ignorant of the health care model adopted.

This is also not a statement that COVID didn't kill. This is also not a statement that COVID didn't mame. This isn't a statement that water isn't wet or that the vaccine caused autism.

You told me about the worst experience of your relative. It's is unfortunate for them. I did not wish them ill. I did not deny that this happened. You demanded that I change my statement because of their and your experience.

I'm sorry that they may have suffered in the real world not being fair. But let's be clear NO, I will not change a statement of fact.

Again, I'm not wishing them ill, but there is a world of difference between suffering and an uncomfortable hospital visit and death. This fact does not mean I am wishing ill will upon anyone.

I'm not being argumentative, I'm being corrective. Yes I was insulted by being shut down for feelings, but that is a philosophical line I will never cross based on the last 4 years. Feelings too are important, I'm not saying they're not, but they don't solely define reality.

I think we've been able to reach this point without name calling again so in good faith I'll wish you a good day, week, year and life and too to those you love and care for.

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#859

Post by camgunz »

rayiner wrote: post #855
camgunz wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I skipped my usual edit sweep and my post above was pretty wordy as a result, but TL;DR I think giving her a rifle fits with Trump's pattern of "say it without saying it". If you don't agree, I'm fine conceding this is about combat. Trump is still dehumanizing and advocating for violence against his political enemies. The reason other politicians avoid this kind of rhetoric is they don't want to take the polit…

I think the “pattern” is that Trump speaks plainly instead of using corporate HR speak and people read whatever they want into that. But regardless, we shouldn’t be more upset about how Trump is criticizing the war monger than we are about the war mongering.

I'm a Democrat; I'm upset about both.

There's a difference between talking like you're an LLM trained by focus groups and endangering your political rivals with your rhetoric. A lot of Democratic senators are/were good at that. Don't make yet another false equivalence here.

Re: CIA now favors lab leak theory to explain Covid's origins

#860

Post by sumedh »

maxglute wrote: post #849
sumedh wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check the date of that video, if you are trying to spread propaganda at least do it right.

The video is September 2019. Before December 2019. Hence PRC narrative that there were signs of covid like infections in US before PRC. I'm clarifying the propaganda. You can look up EVALI to see full timeline, which starts early 2019, in line with PRC narrative.

Watch that video again, it's very interesting that all those people who got sick had vaping in common and none of their doctors fell sick while when the virus leaked from the lab and infected people those people infected doctors in Wuhan as well.

As as I said when you are trying to spread propaganda, at least do it right.

Post reply on HN