3 ms·

There is no legitimate reason for this to be flagged. What happened to the vouch option?

formerly_proven 5y ago
Vouch goes away if you keep vouching for things that get flagged again (or something like that).
dawnerd 5y ago
There sure is. I flagged it because it’s speculation and conspiracy stuff shouldn’t be on HN. Sure it could be a leak but armchair detective work can be dangerous.
- WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
- alanfranz 5y ago
  It’s quite well written. It may be false, but why should it be a conspiracy?
  - rajup 5y ago
    It is a conspiracy because it does not fit into GPs world view and what they think is right. Apparently presenting citations and data is “speculation” these days…
- gojomo 5y ago
  There's nothing in the HN Guidelines which would suggest this sort of article is disallowed: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Also, everything that's unpleasant to consider isn't a 'conspiracy'. Labs have performed gain-of-function experiments that create nastier viruses fairly regularly, often proudly publishing their work. Those same kinds of labs, while they always try not to, sometimes leak dangerous disease-causing agents - typically by infecting a researcher who then infects others in the community. So the speculated chain of events doesn't even require any malice – just known-to-happen events cooccuring at an inopportune time. And how can "armchair detective work" like this be "dangerous"? Hackers love to engage in armchair detective work! Unless there are reckless accusations placing potentially innocent people in danger – not at all true of this article – there's no grounds for suppressing good faith discussion, at least not in any culture that values open discussion of ideas, including even suspect ideas, to confirm/refute/improve them.
- kelnos 5y ago
  If you're going to flag things that are "speculation", you're going to have to flag quite a lot of things that make it to the HN front page. "Conspiracy stuff" means baseless, hand-wavy claims. While the author's hypothesis may turn out to be false, my reading of it suggests that the argument is made in good faith, and is supported by data. It may not be the right interpretation of that data, and the conclusions may be incorrect, but I don't consider this "conspiracy stuff". Regardless of whether or not any of this turns out to have been one or more lab leaks, we need to keep talking about it, in an evidence- and data-based manner. We still have no idea where this virus originally came from, and we need to continue to explore all reasonable options until they are ruled out, or another option is proved to be true. You may not think a lab leak is reasonable, but I think that's short-sighted, and certainly hasn't been ruled out as an option.
- rleigh 5y ago
  Please don't do this, our understanding of the world is not improved by censoring things we consider unplatable. It is not a "conspiracy" to consider various viewpoints. Everything speculated about in the article was backed up by real data. It may be true, or it may be false, but suppressing discussion is no way forward to determine the origins of the virus. I'm an immunologist and molecular biologist, though I currently work on software-related things. I've worked in class 3 facilities in a medical school as a PhD and a postdoc. I've seen a fellow PhD student infect themselves with a tropical disease. I've seen my fair share of good and bad working practices. Scientists are not infallible, they are human. They make mistakes, they get sloppy, and they lose attention. The unfortunate reality is that lab leaks are commonplace. Most you never hear about because the consequences are minor. Given the poor track record of labs worldwide to practice good biosafety, the real question here is whether we should have a complete worldwide ban on gain-of-function research. Is the risk really worth the benefit? Over time, we'll gradually learn the real truth of the origins of all of the variants as we get more data, but attempting to suppress discussion of genuine avenues of investigation is about as anti-scientific as you can get. Please reconsider your attitude.

Vouch goes away if you keep vouching for things that get flagged again (or something like that).

There sure is. I flagged it because it’s speculation and conspiracy stuff shouldn’t be on HN. Sure it could be a leak but armchair detective work can be dangerous.

WaxedChewbacca 5y ago
alanfranz 5y ago
It’s quite well written. It may be false, but why should it be a conspiracy?
- rajup 5y ago
  It is a conspiracy because it does not fit into GPs world view and what they think is right. Apparently presenting citations and data is “speculation” these days…
gojomo 5y ago
There's nothing in the HN Guidelines which would suggest this sort of article is disallowed: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Also, everything that's unpleasant to consider isn't a 'conspiracy'. Labs have performed gain-of-function experiments that create nastier viruses fairly regularly, often proudly publishing their work. Those same kinds of labs, while they always try not to, sometimes leak dangerous disease-causing agents - typically by infecting a researcher who then infects others in the community. So the speculated chain of events doesn't even require any malice – just known-to-happen events cooccuring at an inopportune time. And how can "armchair detective work" like this be "dangerous"? Hackers love to engage in armchair detective work! Unless there are reckless accusations placing potentially innocent people in danger – not at all true of this article – there's no grounds for suppressing good faith discussion, at least not in any culture that values open discussion of ideas, including even suspect ideas, to confirm/refute/improve them.
kelnos 5y ago
If you're going to flag things that are "speculation", you're going to have to flag quite a lot of things that make it to the HN front page. "Conspiracy stuff" means baseless, hand-wavy claims. While the author's hypothesis may turn out to be false, my reading of it suggests that the argument is made in good faith, and is supported by data. It may not be the right interpretation of that data, and the conclusions may be incorrect, but I don't consider this "conspiracy stuff". Regardless of whether or not any of this turns out to have been one or more lab leaks, we need to keep talking about it, in an evidence- and data-based manner. We still have no idea where this virus originally came from, and we need to continue to explore all reasonable options until they are ruled out, or another option is proved to be true. You may not think a lab leak is reasonable, but I think that's short-sighted, and certainly hasn't been ruled out as an option.
rleigh 5y ago
Please don't do this, our understanding of the world is not improved by censoring things we consider unplatable. It is not a "conspiracy" to consider various viewpoints. Everything speculated about in the article was backed up by real data. It may be true, or it may be false, but suppressing discussion is no way forward to determine the origins of the virus. I'm an immunologist and molecular biologist, though I currently work on software-related things. I've worked in class 3 facilities in a medical school as a PhD and a postdoc. I've seen a fellow PhD student infect themselves with a tropical disease. I've seen my fair share of good and bad working practices. Scientists are not infallible, they are human. They make mistakes, they get sloppy, and they lose attention. The unfortunate reality is that lab leaks are commonplace. Most you never hear about because the consequences are minor. Given the poor track record of labs worldwide to practice good biosafety, the real question here is whether we should have a complete worldwide ban on gain-of-function research. Is the risk really worth the benefit? Over time, we'll gradually learn the real truth of the origins of all of the variants as we get more data, but attempting to suppress discussion of genuine avenues of investigation is about as anti-scientific as you can get. Please reconsider your attitude.