7 ms·

The fact that this particular theory reaches the front page of hacker news every week, despite zero evidence besides the existence of a lab.. hey, we're just a

The fact that this particular theory reaches the front page of hacker news every week, despite zero evidence besides the existence of a lab.. hey, we're just asking questions, here, right? Frankly, it would be irresponsible NOT to provacatively suggest this thing we have no evidence of, repeatedly.

arcticbull 6y ago
Yes it sure would be irresponsible to ask questions about the... (1) BSL-3 lab doing bat coronavirus research... (2) on gain-of-function projects... (3) one block away from the epicenter of a coronavirus pandemic with bat ties... (4) that nobody's being allowed into... (5) when they have a history of coronavirus lab escapes. I'm not saying we know this is what happened. I'm saying it's not a far-fetched position and there's a lot of experts who agree. I hear there's even an MIT Technology Review write-up about it.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  The write-up specified that they're a noisy minority who disagree with the consensus. In the subheading, after the heading 'scientists say..'. Media! It's still 100% speculation. The question to ask is, would there be this level of suggestive speculation if it wasn't America's newest top rival?
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Sure, but also, if the PRC didn't have a tendency of murdering it's dissenters and anyone who made them look bad. They're not exactly a shining beacon of transparency. If this was going down in New Zealand I'm not sure anyone would be speculating, and also WHO investigators would have been granted full access to the facility on day 1.
    - refenestrator 6y ago
      And we're up to the nub of it -- lots of people fundamentally think China is evil and this topic is just another battleground.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Nope, I don't think they're evil, I think they have a track record. That's not the same thing at all. Track records can be good or bad -- in this case, it's a bad track record.
        refenestrator 6y ago
        Plenty of bad track records to go around. You started off saying this wasn't about xenophobia, and sure that's a strong word, but it does seem like 'bias' would hit the mark pretty squarely.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        Xenophobia is roughly defined as "dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries." Certainly a blanket dislike without any justification. On the other hand, what I've said is (a) I have nothing against "foreigners" (b) there's a ton of circumstantial evidence and (c) China has a long track record of silencing opposition and criticism to prevent derogatory information from getting out. That's not xenophobia. It's like if you have someone who's robbed 6 convenience stores, and your reaction is "hey I'm not sure they're a good fit for the world of cashiering." Or better yet, a 7th convenience store is robbed adjacent to the first 6 in the same exact way, and your reaction is "someone should see what Steve was up to that night." That's not bias, that's a substantiated track record. It's inductive reasoning. It's utterly unreasonable to call anyone who holds China's track record against them xenophobic or biased lol. They've earned that track record. When they show a different attitude they'll get treated differently. > Plenty of bad track records to go around. That right there is quintessential whataboutism.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - spfzero 6y ago
    Yes, if millions of people had died. There would, and justifiably so.
cscurmudgeon 6y ago
> despite zero evidence Zero evidence because independent third parties have not been given access. An event of this magnitude requires a free and fair scientific investigation. Absent that, one theory is as good as another. Downvoted as always by the irrational.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Roll a die representing all possible human-bat virus interactions in the world. How many of those rolls land next door to a lab researching these?
- jeduehr 6y ago
  Hi there's actually quite a bit of reason to believe the zoonotic transmission didn't actually happen in Wuhan, based on the available genetic and epidemiological evidence. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/fqpcfs2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- refenestrator 6y ago
  Add in bat-livestock interactions and a very hands-on agricultural sector, and you get a real, real lot of rolls. Obviously noone can prove a negative, there's a chance it came from that lab, but the odds are astronomical that it came about the same boring way as bird flu and SARS.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    And SARS escaped from a lab twice. In China. The government at the time admitted it. So I’m not 100% that’s the example I’d go with haha. It’s important to split this in two: one thesis is that it was invented or created or synthesized at a lab in China. This I’m far less bullish on. The other separate thesis is regardless of origin, man made or wild, it accidentally or intentionally found its way through the doors of a lab in China and into society. It’s this one we’re talking about. At least I am.
    - refenestrator 6y ago
      The point is it didn't start in a lab. Look, if the point here is blame, have at it. It started in China, blame China, feel great about that and don't worry about our government's performance or theirs. But if the point is truth, it probably came from agriculture->society. Labs are not necessary for that story, and China was blindsided anyways.
Igelau 6y ago
This comment is so encumbered by snark that it's not clear what you're even trying to say.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

arcticbull 6y ago

Yes it sure would be irresponsible to ask questions about the... (1) BSL-3 lab doing bat coronavirus research... (2) on gain-of-function projects... (3) one block away from the epicenter of a coronavirus pandemic with bat ties... (4) that nobody's being allowed into... (5) when they have a history of coronavirus lab escapes. I'm not saying we know this is what happened. I'm saying it's not a far-fetched position and there's a lot of experts who agree. I hear there's even an MIT Technology Review write-up about it.

refenestrator 6y ago
The write-up specified that they're a noisy minority who disagree with the consensus. In the subheading, after the heading 'scientists say..'. Media! It's still 100% speculation. The question to ask is, would there be this level of suggestive speculation if it wasn't America's newest top rival?
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Sure, but also, if the PRC didn't have a tendency of murdering it's dissenters and anyone who made them look bad. They're not exactly a shining beacon of transparency. If this was going down in New Zealand I'm not sure anyone would be speculating, and also WHO investigators would have been granted full access to the facility on day 1.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    And we're up to the nub of it -- lots of people fundamentally think China is evil and this topic is just another battleground.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Nope, I don't think they're evil, I think they have a track record. That's not the same thing at all. Track records can be good or bad -- in this case, it's a bad track record.
      - refenestrator 6y ago
        Plenty of bad track records to go around. You started off saying this wasn't about xenophobia, and sure that's a strong word, but it does seem like 'bias' would hit the mark pretty squarely.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        Xenophobia is roughly defined as "dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries." Certainly a blanket dislike without any justification. On the other hand, what I've said is (a) I have nothing against "foreigners" (b) there's a ton of circumstantial evidence and (c) China has a long track record of silencing opposition and criticism to prevent derogatory information from getting out. That's not xenophobia. It's like if you have someone who's robbed 6 convenience stores, and your reaction is "hey I'm not sure they're a good fit for the world of cashiering." Or better yet, a 7th convenience store is robbed adjacent to the first 6 in the same exact way, and your reaction is "someone should see what Steve was up to that night." That's not bias, that's a substantiated track record. It's inductive reasoning. It's utterly unreasonable to call anyone who holds China's track record against them xenophobic or biased lol. They've earned that track record. When they show a different attitude they'll get treated differently. > Plenty of bad track records to go around. That right there is quintessential whataboutism.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- spfzero 6y ago
  Yes, if millions of people had died. There would, and justifiably so.

cscurmudgeon 6y ago

> despite zero evidence Zero evidence because independent third parties have not been given access. An event of this magnitude requires a free and fair scientific investigation. Absent that, one theory is as good as another. Downvoted as always by the irrational.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Roll a die representing all possible human-bat virus interactions in the world. How many of those rolls land next door to a lab researching these?

jeduehr 6y ago
Hi there's actually quite a bit of reason to believe the zoonotic transmission didn't actually happen in Wuhan, based on the available genetic and epidemiological evidence. See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did_not_come_from_the_wuhan_institute_of/fqpcfs2/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/gk6y95/covid19_did...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
refenestrator 6y ago
Add in bat-livestock interactions and a very hands-on agricultural sector, and you get a real, real lot of rolls. Obviously noone can prove a negative, there's a chance it came from that lab, but the odds are astronomical that it came about the same boring way as bird flu and SARS.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  And SARS escaped from a lab twice. In China. The government at the time admitted it. So I’m not 100% that’s the example I’d go with haha. It’s important to split this in two: one thesis is that it was invented or created or synthesized at a lab in China. This I’m far less bullish on. The other separate thesis is regardless of origin, man made or wild, it accidentally or intentionally found its way through the doors of a lab in China and into society. It’s this one we’re talking about. At least I am.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    The point is it didn't start in a lab. Look, if the point here is blame, have at it. It started in China, blame China, feel great about that and don't worry about our government's performance or theirs. But if the point is truth, it probably came from agriculture->society. Labs are not necessary for that story, and China was blindsided anyways.

Igelau 6y ago

This comment is so encumbered by snark that it's not clear what you're even trying to say.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]