4 ms·

What good does it if we discuss such a sensitive issue without solid proof? There are thousands of other theories that have no supporting evidence. Some of them

What good does it if we discuss such a sensitive issue without solid proof? There are thousands of other theories that have no supporting evidence. Some of them may even be true but most are just BS that takes up time. So let's wait with this discussion until there really is solid evidence for a theory.

nradov 6y ago
We are probably never going to get solid proof either way. The lab origin hypothesis hasn't been ruled out. Yuri Deigin posted an interesting analysis with some circumstantial evidence. https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throu... There have been at least four other coronaviruses which crossed over from animals to humans before we had any real viral manipulation technology. So I suspect SARS-CoV-2 followed the same natural pattern. But that's still just a hypothesis, not proof.
- matthewdgreen 6y ago
  If you demand absolute proof of every (negative) claim, then you're going to be unable to function in the world. In practice, the important question is: "is there enough evidence for this extraordinary hypothesis that it should influence our response going forward." Right now, the answer seems to be negative.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Understanding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is irrelevant to how we handle the current pandemic. But it would be useful for reducing the risk of another similar pandemic in the future.
    - matthewdgreen 6y ago
      Understanding the origin of the pandemic is incredibly valuable. Continuing to moot about the possibility of lab origin in the absence of any positive evidence in favor of that hypothesis, that’s not terribly useful.
- hef19898 6y ago
  The animal transmission is, as far as I understood, backed up by genetic analysis of the virus. Which beats any circumstantial "evidence" by a long shot if you ask me.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Based on genetic analysis there is no doubt that an ancestor of the current SARS-CoV-2 strains originated in animals. What remains unknown is exactly how it crossed over to humans. The index patient hasn't been identified. Some sort of laboratory involvement seems unlikely, but we can't reject any hypothesis without definitive evidence.
    - hef19898 6y ago
      Isn't it ususally that you proof hypothesis are correct instead of proofing them wrong? This "I'm just asking, because it could theoretically be true" stuff is slowly getting tiresome.
      - nradov 6y ago
        No that is not at all how it usually works. The essence of the scientific method is formulating a hypothesis and then conducting experiments in an attempt to falsify it. The more experiments that have failed to falsify a hypothesis, the more confidence we can have in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability As a basic matter of epistemology we can almost never really prove a hypothesis. All we can do is agree that it fits the available data until something better comes along.
        hef19898 6y ago
        Until you found proof for a hypothesis to be correct. At witch point you usually stop trying to falsify that hypothesis. Applying that to the Wuhan lab theory, the correct way would be to properly falsify the natural jump from animals to humans first. Scientifically falsifying it. I have yet to see such proof. EDIT: Of course these proofs have a certain likelihood of being false, hence all the p-value chasing and confidence-level adjusting.

nradov 6y ago

We are probably never going to get solid proof either way. The lab origin hypothesis hasn't been ruled out. Yuri Deigin posted an interesting analysis with some circumstantial evidence. https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-throu... There have been at least four other coronaviruses which crossed over from animals to humans before we had any real viral manipulation technology. So I suspect SARS-CoV-2 followed the same natural pattern. But that's still just a hypothesis, not proof.

matthewdgreen 6y ago
If you demand absolute proof of every (negative) claim, then you're going to be unable to function in the world. In practice, the important question is: "is there enough evidence for this extraordinary hypothesis that it should influence our response going forward." Right now, the answer seems to be negative.
- nradov 6y ago
  Understanding the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is irrelevant to how we handle the current pandemic. But it would be useful for reducing the risk of another similar pandemic in the future.
  - matthewdgreen 6y ago
    Understanding the origin of the pandemic is incredibly valuable. Continuing to moot about the possibility of lab origin in the absence of any positive evidence in favor of that hypothesis, that’s not terribly useful.
hef19898 6y ago
The animal transmission is, as far as I understood, backed up by genetic analysis of the virus. Which beats any circumstantial "evidence" by a long shot if you ask me.
- nradov 6y ago
  Based on genetic analysis there is no doubt that an ancestor of the current SARS-CoV-2 strains originated in animals. What remains unknown is exactly how it crossed over to humans. The index patient hasn't been identified. Some sort of laboratory involvement seems unlikely, but we can't reject any hypothesis without definitive evidence.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    Isn't it ususally that you proof hypothesis are correct instead of proofing them wrong? This "I'm just asking, because it could theoretically be true" stuff is slowly getting tiresome.
    - nradov 6y ago
      No that is not at all how it usually works. The essence of the scientific method is formulating a hypothesis and then conducting experiments in an attempt to falsify it. The more experiments that have failed to falsify a hypothesis, the more confidence we can have in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability As a basic matter of epistemology we can almost never really prove a hypothesis. All we can do is agree that it fits the available data until something better comes along.
      - hef19898 6y ago
        Until you found proof for a hypothesis to be correct. At witch point you usually stop trying to falsify that hypothesis. Applying that to the Wuhan lab theory, the correct way would be to properly falsify the natural jump from animals to humans first. Scientifically falsifying it. I have yet to see such proof. EDIT: Of course these proofs have a certain likelihood of being false, hence all the p-value chasing and confidence-level adjusting.