4 ms·

> By "bioerror", I mean something which has the same effect as a terror attack, but rises from inadvertance rather than evil intent. [1] It's not clear that co

> By "bioerror", I mean something which has the same effect as a terror attack, but rises from inadvertance rather than evil intent. [1] It's not clear that covid-19 isn't bioerror. There is a lot of information[2] pointing in that direction, so I wouldn't dismiss the theory outright the way the OP authors did. In any case it hasn't killed a million people. 1. http://longbets.org/9/ http://longbets.org/9/ 2. https://project-evidence.github.io https://project-evidence.github.io

jnbiche 7y ago
Agreed. And by the bet's definition, 1M causalities is defined specifically as "requiring hospitalization", so we'll likely reach that easily in a 6 month period.
mirimir 7y ago
Huh. Maybe Chinese labs were studying SARS-CoV-like viruses because the risk of zoonotic reemergence was so damn obvious. See my comment in another thread.[0] But in any case, doesn't ignoring that risk count as "inadvertence"? 0) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22912763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22912763
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Yeah, but by going out into the wild and collecting bat coronavirus samples to bring back to the lab, they certainly opened Pandora's box. Catch-22? Are we put at greater risk by studying and experimenting with viruses like this?
  - mirimir 7y ago
    I don't think that we know where the pandemic started, whether it was bats for sale in the market, or escape from the lab. Maybe it was both. But I do think that sampling and lab work are important. You just need to be careful. Very, very careful.
    - intuitionist 7y ago
      IANA virologist but my understanding is that a spillover event that infects a large number of people (as would have happened at the seafood market) is considered unlikely, although this depends on your opinion of how sanitary the market was—reports vary. Of course this doesn’t mean that the virus escaped from the lab, it could well be that a pangolin vendor got the coronavirus and spread it at the Huanan market.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      Could have be someone coming back infected from Southern China shopping at the market. That guy could have suffered mild disease and as a result we will never find him.
throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
'A lot of evidence' isn't one link. But let's look at that link. "We are an anonymous group of researchers" Well that's a good start innit (to be fair, it looks like it really is well intentioned and they are making an honest attempt but without attribution it's impossible to tell). anyway, their summary, which you should have posted: "Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus." It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way.
- DoingIsLearning 7y ago
  > It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way. It presents 22 verifiable and relevant references. It unequivocally presents information which makes a 'wet-market' theory stand on a weak foundation. I keep asking the same question to these accounts that question the validity of this 'lab accident' theory: Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory?
  - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
    You appear unable to read to the end, in which I copy/paste a conclusion of the researchers you cite. > Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory? Can you provide evidence that it's not. Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. And I've already quoted a conclusion which you seem to be struggling with. There is not enough evidence to conclude anything yet. There may never be.
    - randallsquared 7y ago
      > Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. Both the wet-market and accidental-release claims need evidence; they don't exclude all other possibilities.
      - DoingIsLearning 7y ago

jnbiche 7y ago

Agreed. And by the bet's definition, 1M causalities is defined specifically as "requiring hospitalization", so we'll likely reach that easily in a 6 month period.

mirimir 7y ago

Huh. Maybe Chinese labs were studying SARS-CoV-like viruses because the risk of zoonotic reemergence was so damn obvious. See my comment in another thread.[0] But in any case, doesn't ignoring that risk count as "inadvertence"? 0) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22912763 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22912763

chrisco255 7y ago
Yeah, but by going out into the wild and collecting bat coronavirus samples to bring back to the lab, they certainly opened Pandora's box. Catch-22? Are we put at greater risk by studying and experimenting with viruses like this?
- mirimir 7y ago
  I don't think that we know where the pandemic started, whether it was bats for sale in the market, or escape from the lab. Maybe it was both. But I do think that sampling and lab work are important. You just need to be careful. Very, very careful.
  - intuitionist 7y ago
    IANA virologist but my understanding is that a spillover event that infects a large number of people (as would have happened at the seafood market) is considered unlikely, although this depends on your opinion of how sanitary the market was—reports vary. Of course this doesn’t mean that the virus escaped from the lab, it could well be that a pangolin vendor got the coronavirus and spread it at the Huanan market.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Could have be someone coming back infected from Southern China shopping at the market. That guy could have suffered mild disease and as a result we will never find him.

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago

'A lot of evidence' isn't one link. But let's look at that link. "We are an anonymous group of researchers" Well that's a good start innit (to be fair, it looks like it really is well intentioned and they are making an honest attempt but without attribution it's impossible to tell). anyway, their summary, which you should have posted: "Editors’ note, March 2020: We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus." It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way.

DoingIsLearning 7y ago
> It's not 'a lot of evidence' either way. It presents 22 verifiable and relevant references. It unequivocally presents information which makes a 'wet-market' theory stand on a weak foundation. I keep asking the same question to these accounts that question the validity of this 'lab accident' theory: Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory?
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  You appear unable to read to the end, in which I copy/paste a conclusion of the researchers you cite. > Can you provide verifiable evidence for the widely accepted 'wet-market' theory? Can you provide evidence that it's not. Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. And I've already quoted a conclusion which you seem to be struggling with. There is not enough evidence to conclude anything yet. There may never be.
  - randallsquared 7y ago
    > Onus is on you as you claim otherwise. Both the wet-market and accidental-release claims need evidence; they don't exclude all other possibilities.
    - DoingIsLearning 7y ago