3 ms·

I'm flagging it because it's just presenting the view of some guy who asserts something. There's not enough information in there for a fact-based discussion. S

by svara 6y ago

I'm flagging it because it's just presenting the view of some guy who asserts something. There's not enough information in there for a fact-based discussion. Since this topic is unfortunately a politically loaded one, that basically guarantees the discussion is going to turn to shit. If somebody were to post an article presenting clear arguments based on data, I wouldn't flag.

nkurz 6y ago
> just presenting the view of some guy I haven't independently verified anything, but the article claims that rather than just being "some guy", the interviewee is a prominent Norwegian scientist who is respected for his work on HIV and is currently working on a vaccine for COVID-19. If this is true, I feel he is above any reasonable bar for having a right to an opinion. > There's not enough information in there for a fact-based discussion. Compared to some earlier articles, I was pleased to see that this one included quite a bit of detail --- it even has a pullout trying to explain the relevance of spike proteins! And while it would be nice if there was a published scientific article, the authors of this news article directly address that: "Minerva has read a draft of the article, and has after an overall assessment decided that the findings and arguments do deserve public debate, and that this discussion cannot depend entirely on the publication process of scientific journals." Still, I do appreciate your response, and hope others can join in on discussing whether flagging is appropriate.
inciampati 6y ago
Sure, here you go: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199 This uses a rigorous bioinformatic analysis to demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has dramatically stronger binding affinity for human ACE2 than any other known version of the protein. This is the case for the version of the protein observed at the very beginning of the outbreak. The virus evolves slowly, so this implies a very long period of transmission in human cells, which is compatible with a zoonotic transfer much earlier than expected (possibly many years) or gain of function experiments in cell cultures. As a biologist, I find this to be sufficient factual information to motivate a discussion about the possible origins of the virus.
- svara 6y ago
  Ok, interesting. But there's a huge issue of selection bias here. We're interested in this virus precisely because it poses a threat to humans, so obviously it's adapted to humans. As a biologist, I therefore think this does not mean much at all. ;) At least not without a more quantitative treatment of the claim that "this implies a very long period of transmission in human cells". Thanks for posting this though!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by svara 6y ago

nkurz 6y ago

> just presenting the view of some guy I haven't independently verified anything, but the article claims that rather than just being "some guy", the interviewee is a prominent Norwegian scientist who is respected for his work on HIV and is currently working on a vaccine for COVID-19. If this is true, I feel he is above any reasonable bar for having a right to an opinion. > There's not enough information in there for a fact-based discussion. Compared to some earlier articles, I was pleased to see that this one included quite a bit of detail --- it even has a pullout trying to explain the relevance of spike proteins! And while it would be nice if there was a published scientific article, the authors of this news article directly address that: "Minerva has read a draft of the article, and has after an overall assessment decided that the findings and arguments do deserve public debate, and that this discussion cannot depend entirely on the publication process of scientific journals." Still, I do appreciate your response, and hope others can join in on discussing whether flagging is appropriate.

inciampati 6y ago

Sure, here you go: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06199 This uses a rigorous bioinformatic analysis to demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has dramatically stronger binding affinity for human ACE2 than any other known version of the protein. This is the case for the version of the protein observed at the very beginning of the outbreak. The virus evolves slowly, so this implies a very long period of transmission in human cells, which is compatible with a zoonotic transfer much earlier than expected (possibly many years) or gain of function experiments in cell cultures. As a biologist, I find this to be sufficient factual information to motivate a discussion about the possible origins of the virus.

svara 6y ago
Ok, interesting. But there's a huge issue of selection bias here. We're interested in this virus precisely because it poses a threat to humans, so obviously it's adapted to humans. As a biologist, I therefore think this does not mean much at all. ;) At least not without a more quantitative treatment of the claim that "this implies a very long period of transmission in human cells". Thanks for posting this though!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]