4 ms·

One thing that's baffling to me is that I've not seen any discussion from scientists who actually know what they are talking about. All we get are articles who

by yarcob 5y ago

One thing that's baffling to me is that I've not seen any discussion from scientists who actually know what they are talking about. All we get are articles who talk about the political side, and try to prove things by how certain actors behaved. Most of the actual science that all the articles cite are pop-sci simplifications at best. People talk about how parts from multiple viruses would be joined together etc, how base pairs are 97% identical, etc. These are all very high level summaries that don't really allow for detailed conclusions. Now I'm not a subject matter expert myself, but from what I've learned about evolutionary genetics is that some scenarios would be pretty obvious when looking at the genome. For example, you could look at where in the genome the mutations occur. I'd love to read an article that goes in depth on the actual scientific arguments, rather than just rehashes of rehashes like this.

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
That's because the theory is being pushed for political reasons, and most virologists think it's nonsense. The evidence for a lab leak is the same as it's ever been: nothing. There's no evidence the lab even had SARS-CoV-2 on hand before the pandemic, which is an absolute prerequisite for the lab leak theory to be possible, and all the evidence points to the lab not having had the virus. They regularly publish the genetic sequences of the viruses they have, and SARS-CoV-2 is not among them. For comparison, the now-famous RaTG13 was published in 2016. But given the way that conspiracy theories work, proponents of the lab-leak theory will just assert that the lab secretly had SARS-CoV-2, but unlike with all their other viruses, they didn't publish it. The theory is unfalsifiable, and it will constantly morph to remain so.
- m-ee 5y ago
  If the lab even did secretly have SARS-CoV-2, they must have acquired that sample somewhere. Which means it was out in the wild spreading and ready to spillover. Even buying into the conspiracy theory a bit the lab leak still doesn't seem like the most probable outcome. It's strange that everyone pushing the lab leak ignores this.
- yarcob 5y ago
  > most virologists think it's nonsense That's exactly the kind of unsubstantiated statements I see all the time (both from proponents of the lab leak theory and from opponents). I'd love to read the actual reasoning why virologists think that it's nonsense. I'm a bit sad that hacker is so full of political and over-simplified arguments for this topic, and the actual science is missing.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    This is a recent discussion on This Week in Virology: https://youtu.be/IxwrDSYrhjU https://youtu.be/IxwrDSYrhjU. The main reasons why virologists think the idea of a lab leak is nonsense: * Nothing in the genome of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly surprising. All the elements of the virus (including the furin cleavage site) are commonly found in other coronaviruses. * Every novel virus in history has been the result of spillover from animals. Just in the last 20 years alone, two novel coronaviruses have spilled over into humans: SARS and MERS. SARS-related coronaviruses are circulating in bat and other animal populations throughout China and Southeast Asia, and millions of people come into regular contact with these animal populations. These millions of people are not trained researchers wearing protective gear and undergoing regular testing for infection. Literally millions of people are constantly exposed at much higher levels than researchers. * There is not a single shred of evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had SARS-CoV-2 before the pandemic. None. On the other hand, there's good evidence that they didn't have it. They publish the genomes of viruses they find (such as the now-famous RaTG13, which they published in 2016), and SARS-CoV-2 is not among them. * The Wuhan Institute of Virology has only ever isolated three SARS-related coronaviruses, and it has published extensively on them. All three of them are only distantly related to SARS-CoV-2. All the gain-of-function conspiracy theories require SARS-CoV-2 to have been secretly isolated in a lab, which is a very difficult and time-consuming task, without anyone being informed, without anything being published, and without any of the many people who would know about this (very likely including foreign scientists) spilling the beans. * The Wuhan Institute of Virology, just like all other well-run high-security labs, regularly tests its workers for signs of infection. If lab workers had been infected, they would be seropositive. The lab-leak conspiracy theory requires the lab to be lying about its testing results.
  - 5y ago
dalbasal 5y ago
I agree. It's a structural weakness. Human stories about conflicts of interest, ideological takes focused on confluency with grander theories, politically factionalization and such make the better story. Hard positions make better stories than skeptical ambiguity. That can't be helped. Most people are going to read the compelling story, so that will be what major publications print. We do need some sort of journalism that doesn't do this. Someone needs to research and investigate this without populist considerations playing a role. Not instead of what we have, in addition to.

by yarcob 5y ago

DiogenesKynikos 5y ago

That's because the theory is being pushed for political reasons, and most virologists think it's nonsense. The evidence for a lab leak is the same as it's ever been: nothing. There's no evidence the lab even had SARS-CoV-2 on hand before the pandemic, which is an absolute prerequisite for the lab leak theory to be possible, and all the evidence points to the lab not having had the virus. They regularly publish the genetic sequences of the viruses they have, and SARS-CoV-2 is not among them. For comparison, the now-famous RaTG13 was published in 2016. But given the way that conspiracy theories work, proponents of the lab-leak theory will just assert that the lab secretly had SARS-CoV-2, but unlike with all their other viruses, they didn't publish it. The theory is unfalsifiable, and it will constantly morph to remain so.

m-ee 5y ago
If the lab even did secretly have SARS-CoV-2, they must have acquired that sample somewhere. Which means it was out in the wild spreading and ready to spillover. Even buying into the conspiracy theory a bit the lab leak still doesn't seem like the most probable outcome. It's strange that everyone pushing the lab leak ignores this.
yarcob 5y ago
> most virologists think it's nonsense That's exactly the kind of unsubstantiated statements I see all the time (both from proponents of the lab leak theory and from opponents). I'd love to read the actual reasoning why virologists think that it's nonsense. I'm a bit sad that hacker is so full of political and over-simplified arguments for this topic, and the actual science is missing.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  This is a recent discussion on This Week in Virology: https://youtu.be/IxwrDSYrhjU https://youtu.be/IxwrDSYrhjU. The main reasons why virologists think the idea of a lab leak is nonsense: * Nothing in the genome of SARS-CoV-2 is particularly surprising. All the elements of the virus (including the furin cleavage site) are commonly found in other coronaviruses. * Every novel virus in history has been the result of spillover from animals. Just in the last 20 years alone, two novel coronaviruses have spilled over into humans: SARS and MERS. SARS-related coronaviruses are circulating in bat and other animal populations throughout China and Southeast Asia, and millions of people come into regular contact with these animal populations. These millions of people are not trained researchers wearing protective gear and undergoing regular testing for infection. Literally millions of people are constantly exposed at much higher levels than researchers. * There is not a single shred of evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had SARS-CoV-2 before the pandemic. None. On the other hand, there's good evidence that they didn't have it. They publish the genomes of viruses they find (such as the now-famous RaTG13, which they published in 2016), and SARS-CoV-2 is not among them. * The Wuhan Institute of Virology has only ever isolated three SARS-related coronaviruses, and it has published extensively on them. All three of them are only distantly related to SARS-CoV-2. All the gain-of-function conspiracy theories require SARS-CoV-2 to have been secretly isolated in a lab, which is a very difficult and time-consuming task, without anyone being informed, without anything being published, and without any of the many people who would know about this (very likely including foreign scientists) spilling the beans. * The Wuhan Institute of Virology, just like all other well-run high-security labs, regularly tests its workers for signs of infection. If lab workers had been infected, they would be seropositive. The lab-leak conspiracy theory requires the lab to be lying about its testing results.
- 5y ago

dalbasal 5y ago

I agree. It's a structural weakness. Human stories about conflicts of interest, ideological takes focused on confluency with grander theories, politically factionalization and such make the better story. Hard positions make better stories than skeptical ambiguity. That can't be helped. Most people are going to read the compelling story, so that will be what major publications print. We do need some sort of journalism that doesn't do this. Someone needs to research and investigate this without populist considerations playing a role. Not instead of what we have, in addition to.