16 ms·

I'm open minded, but my bullshit detectors started going off around the point where it was casually implied that we all know and it is widely accepted that delt

by d23 5y ago

I'm open minded, but my bullshit detectors started going off around the point where it was casually implied that we all know and it is widely accepted that delta was leaked from a lab. I tried googling it but could find nothing. Then I looked at the two sources the author links: > https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4371212 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4371212 > https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4382708 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4382708 Neither of these have nearly enough evidence or support for such a massive claim (the second doesn't even mention delta), as far as I can tell, and I can find no other reputable sources that make a similar claim. Heck, I can't even find un-reputable ones that mention this. Am I missing something? I'm not going to continue with the article if this is how flimsy the sourcing is.

tunesmith 5y ago
I had never heard that before either. I remember multiple sources saying the discovery originated in India. I think an essay that represents surprising information as obvious is usually a good indicator of bias.
- cassepipe 5y ago
  You misread because of a poorly worded sentence. She does not claim Delta's origin was a lab leak at all but that there has been a lab leak. Instead she implicitly compares Omicron and Delta showing that Delta did evolved naturally whereas it is unlikely of Omicron.
Sevaris 5y ago
I feel like you're unfairly biased. The author doesn't say what you think they do. All they're saying is that there was a lab leak of delta in 2021 as an example of lab leaks being possible. They do not argue that this was the source of delta, nor that this was the source of any other strain. Just that it happened. Sorry, the hysteria on HN is ridiculous. At least read the damn thing and try to be objective about it.
- d23 5y ago
  Where to even begin with this. I'm unfairly biased because I misread what he said? After re-reading, I can see that he may not have been making the point I thought he was making. I'd argue he should make a point like that more clear, but fine, it's on me that I misinterpreted. > the hysteria on HN is ridiculous. "Hysteria"? How do you get hysteria from my response? Because I asked for citations for what I thought was an extreme claim? > At least read the damn thing I did. Reading it was a pre-requisite for posting my response, which cited specific links he included. > and try to be objective about it. Asking for high quality sources was my attempt to be objective. -- Edit: Actually, you know what, I take it back. If you write a sentence like this, it's on you if it's misinterpreted: "For example, we know that the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021." Heck, I'm not even sure it wasn't the author's intent at this point.
  - zzt123 5y ago
    "For example, we know that the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021." - is exactly (mechanically) true in that Delta did leak out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021. This statement does not declare that Delta’s origins were a lab leak, since late 2021 is a year after Delta was first detected in late 2020. Can’t have your origins in the future until time travel is invented. Seems therefore more proper to interpret the statement exactly as written rather than add additional conspiratorial inferences.
    - mike00632 5y ago
      Can you explain the Delta variant lab leak theory for those of us who aren't caught up on conspiracy theories?
      - zzt123 5y ago
        I don’t know the details of the Delta conspiracy theory, but the evolution of Delta looks abundantly natural, so whatever that theory is, seems unlikely.
    - 5y ago
zucked 5y ago
Heavy agree - I can entertain theories just fine, but those are the jankiest of sources that do not at all support the theory that Delta was a lab leak, simply that a technician was infected by Covid and the prevailing believe is that it was a mouse > human transmission.
testplzignore 5y ago
I think there is confusion on what the author meant by "leaked". The Delta variant was already spreading, yes. The author is saying - and the first link above essentially states this - that a lab worker was infected with Delta while in a lab. (Though it's not stated whether that worker was quarantined immediately, or if they could have possibly spread it to others.) So what's the point? 1,000,001 people have Delta instead of 1,000,000? No. The point is to show that Covid infections are indisputably already happening in labs. And if there is a GoF lab that creates a new variant, it logically follows that it is possible for that new variant to escape. So instead of the not-so-bad 1,000,001 vs 1,000,000 Taiwan scenario, you could have a disastrous 1 vs 0 scenario.
- klipt 5y ago
  I'm guessing it's impossible to get the lab leak rate down to 0. And assuming there are currently thousands of labs studying covid, even with a low leak rate there could be some leaks. But of an already existing virus, so not so bad.
  - medimikka 5y ago
    If it can happen in a lab studying an existing type, it can happen in labs studying GoF. The 1977 pandemic was a "leak" of sorts that seems to have originated from a prisoner camp known to give reduced sentence times to inmates willing to participate in medical research. The "leaking" doesn't have to happen from a vial or mouse, the avenues are numerous (Marburg "leaked" when African green monkeys, imported for non-viral research, were handled incorrectly without infectious precautions). > But of an already existing virus, so not so bad. Millions of drivers every day. Hundreds of accidents. Many quite light. Still, the presence of light accidents outlines the possibility of heavy ones. And that's why "phew, got lucky this time" should lead to better protection not a "not so bad, nothing happened" attitude, IMHO.
tailspin2019 5y ago
I had the same reaction. Those articles don’t back up that claim one bit. And I cant make sense of the timings of the events described in those articles either and how that would line up with a supposed lab leak of delta. Some of the other points made in this article were mildly compelling to me (though I don’t know enough on this topic to be able to poke holes) but that delta claim and lack of convincing data to back it up doesn’t help with credibility.
- cassepipe 5y ago
  You misread because of a poorly worded sentence. She does not claim Delta's origin was a lab leak at all but that there has been a lab leak. Instead she implicitly compares Omicron and Delta showing that Delta did evolved naturally whereas it is unlikely of Omicron.
  - tailspin2019 5y ago
    Ah, thank you for clarifying.
  - civilized 5y ago
    Which is funny because Delta's NS:S ratio is also very high. So by her own logic, the NS:S ratio -- what you called her "main" argument in the other thread -- has no predictive value whatsoever for the natural vs lab leak question.
    - dljones 5y ago
      The ratio is one of four "weirdnesses" laid out by the author, which a lab leak might parsimoniously explain, and which, so far, other hypotheses do not neatly or parsimoniously explain. So for you to jump to "no predictive value" is a little odd. Since you feel well-equipped to judge the validity of the various hypotheses for the origin of omicron, which hypothesis do you think explains the information and why? Thanks.
zerobits 5y ago
The author did not claim that Delta's origin was a lab leak. Just that there was one isolated case of it. And so it stands to reason, other lab leaks may also be occurring.
- mike00632 5y ago
  "it stands to reason" We should note you're talking about covered up lab leaks where all of the participants are conspiring to keep it secret because of convoluted motivations. It doesn't "stand to reason" that this happens at all, let alone is the normal case that we should all assume.
  - ds206 5y ago
    No, we're not talking about cover ups. We're talking about studying the virus and it escaping by accident. Also, there is a history of lab leaks so it stands to reason...
    - mike00632 5y ago
      The title is "Lab Leak 2.0". The '1.0' is referring to the popular story about a covered up lab leak in China and the ensuing conspiracy to keep it all a secret.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
XFrequentist 5y ago
You’re missing something. The author is saying that there was a lab leak involving delta, not that delta originated via a lab leak. The latter claim would indeed be a red flag, but the former is just describing a very well-documented event.
- mike00632 5y ago
  "... very well documented event"
  - throwaway829 5y ago
    Not sure what you mean by quoting that but there's not much controversy that Delta leaked from a Biosafety Level-3 facility in Taipei. https://fortune.com/2021/12/10/taiwan-investigates-covid-lab-leak-scientist-tests-positive-bite-infected-mouse/ https://fortune.com/2021/12/10/taiwan-investigates-covid-lab... https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4371080 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4371080 https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-lab-worker-mouse-bite-covid-19-infection-probe-1658736 https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-lab-worker-mouse-bite-covid-...
    - mike00632 5y ago
      You don't understand why I would challenge you to cite your sources in a thread discussing COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation? Not to mention, I think it's pretty clear to both of us that this "well documented event" is not common knowledge to people who don't follow COVID conspiracy theories.
      - XFrequentist 5y ago
        I think this event qualifies as “well documented” by any reasonable standard, there was official public disclosure and an open investigation. As one quick example, here’s a news clip including an interview with the Taiwanese health minister discussing details of the (then) ongoing investigation: https://youtu.be/ecpNq0jz7cs https://youtu.be/ecpNq0jz7cs You can trivially find many more official statements about the event and subsequent investigation, if you like.
jbc1 5y ago
Chuck “Taiwan delta lab” in to google news and you’ll find a hundred articles on it. I don’t know which in particular you would find reputable.
myblake 5y ago
It was really poorly worded and confused me too until I saw the dates on the articles linked out.
kelnos 5y ago
Note that the article isn't suggesting that delta originated as a lab leak, just that some Taiwanese scientists were experimenting with delta in a lab (after delta had been seen widely in the wild), and a lab worker there was infected by delta in the lab (rather than getting it outside), and then brought that infection outside of the lab. That's a lab leak, but it's not the origin of delta.
dljones 5y ago
S/he clarified the delta thing: "[Edited, 5 Jan 2021, to add: Many people have been confused about the statement about delta, so I must have worded it poorly. I’m not saying delta originated in a lab leak. I’m saying delta escaped from a lab late in 2021 where it was being used in research. It’s an example of a research-related lab leak.]"

by d23 5y ago

tunesmith 5y ago

I had never heard that before either. I remember multiple sources saying the discovery originated in India. I think an essay that represents surprising information as obvious is usually a good indicator of bias.

cassepipe 5y ago
You misread because of a poorly worded sentence. She does not claim Delta's origin was a lab leak at all but that there has been a lab leak. Instead she implicitly compares Omicron and Delta showing that Delta did evolved naturally whereas it is unlikely of Omicron.

Sevaris 5y ago

I feel like you're unfairly biased. The author doesn't say what you think they do. All they're saying is that there was a lab leak of delta in 2021 as an example of lab leaks being possible. They do not argue that this was the source of delta, nor that this was the source of any other strain. Just that it happened. Sorry, the hysteria on HN is ridiculous. At least read the damn thing and try to be objective about it.

d23 5y ago
Where to even begin with this. I'm unfairly biased because I misread what he said? After re-reading, I can see that he may not have been making the point I thought he was making. I'd argue he should make a point like that more clear, but fine, it's on me that I misinterpreted. > the hysteria on HN is ridiculous. "Hysteria"? How do you get hysteria from my response? Because I asked for citations for what I thought was an extreme claim? > At least read the damn thing I did. Reading it was a pre-requisite for posting my response, which cited specific links he included. > and try to be objective about it. Asking for high quality sources was my attempt to be objective. -- Edit: Actually, you know what, I take it back. If you write a sentence like this, it's on you if it's misinterpreted: "For example, we know that the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021." Heck, I'm not even sure it wasn't the author's intent at this point.
- zzt123 5y ago
  "For example, we know that the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021." - is exactly (mechanically) true in that Delta did leak out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021. This statement does not declare that Delta’s origins were a lab leak, since late 2021 is a year after Delta was first detected in late 2020. Can’t have your origins in the future until time travel is invented. Seems therefore more proper to interpret the statement exactly as written rather than add additional conspiratorial inferences.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    Can you explain the Delta variant lab leak theory for those of us who aren't caught up on conspiracy theories?
    - zzt123 5y ago
      I don’t know the details of the Delta conspiracy theory, but the evolution of Delta looks abundantly natural, so whatever that theory is, seems unlikely.
  - 5y ago

zucked 5y ago

Heavy agree - I can entertain theories just fine, but those are the jankiest of sources that do not at all support the theory that Delta was a lab leak, simply that a technician was infected by Covid and the prevailing believe is that it was a mouse > human transmission.

testplzignore 5y ago

I think there is confusion on what the author meant by "leaked". The Delta variant was already spreading, yes. The author is saying - and the first link above essentially states this - that a lab worker was infected with Delta while in a lab. (Though it's not stated whether that worker was quarantined immediately, or if they could have possibly spread it to others.) So what's the point? 1,000,001 people have Delta instead of 1,000,000? No. The point is to show that Covid infections are indisputably already happening in labs. And if there is a GoF lab that creates a new variant, it logically follows that it is possible for that new variant to escape. So instead of the not-so-bad 1,000,001 vs 1,000,000 Taiwan scenario, you could have a disastrous 1 vs 0 scenario.

klipt 5y ago
I'm guessing it's impossible to get the lab leak rate down to 0. And assuming there are currently thousands of labs studying covid, even with a low leak rate there could be some leaks. But of an already existing virus, so not so bad.
- medimikka 5y ago
  If it can happen in a lab studying an existing type, it can happen in labs studying GoF. The 1977 pandemic was a "leak" of sorts that seems to have originated from a prisoner camp known to give reduced sentence times to inmates willing to participate in medical research. The "leaking" doesn't have to happen from a vial or mouse, the avenues are numerous (Marburg "leaked" when African green monkeys, imported for non-viral research, were handled incorrectly without infectious precautions). > But of an already existing virus, so not so bad. Millions of drivers every day. Hundreds of accidents. Many quite light. Still, the presence of light accidents outlines the possibility of heavy ones. And that's why "phew, got lucky this time" should lead to better protection not a "not so bad, nothing happened" attitude, IMHO.

tailspin2019 5y ago

I had the same reaction. Those articles don’t back up that claim one bit. And I cant make sense of the timings of the events described in those articles either and how that would line up with a supposed lab leak of delta. Some of the other points made in this article were mildly compelling to me (though I don’t know enough on this topic to be able to poke holes) but that delta claim and lack of convincing data to back it up doesn’t help with credibility.

cassepipe 5y ago
You misread because of a poorly worded sentence. She does not claim Delta's origin was a lab leak at all but that there has been a lab leak. Instead she implicitly compares Omicron and Delta showing that Delta did evolved naturally whereas it is unlikely of Omicron.
- tailspin2019 5y ago
  Ah, thank you for clarifying.
- civilized 5y ago
  Which is funny because Delta's NS:S ratio is also very high. So by her own logic, the NS:S ratio -- what you called her "main" argument in the other thread -- has no predictive value whatsoever for the natural vs lab leak question.
  - dljones 5y ago
    The ratio is one of four "weirdnesses" laid out by the author, which a lab leak might parsimoniously explain, and which, so far, other hypotheses do not neatly or parsimoniously explain. So for you to jump to "no predictive value" is a little odd. Since you feel well-equipped to judge the validity of the various hypotheses for the origin of omicron, which hypothesis do you think explains the information and why? Thanks.

zerobits 5y ago

The author did not claim that Delta's origin was a lab leak. Just that there was one isolated case of it. And so it stands to reason, other lab leaks may also be occurring.

mike00632 5y ago
"it stands to reason" We should note you're talking about covered up lab leaks where all of the participants are conspiring to keep it secret because of convoluted motivations. It doesn't "stand to reason" that this happens at all, let alone is the normal case that we should all assume.
- ds206 5y ago
  No, we're not talking about cover ups. We're talking about studying the virus and it escaping by accident. Also, there is a history of lab leaks so it stands to reason...
  - mike00632 5y ago
    The title is "Lab Leak 2.0". The '1.0' is referring to the popular story about a covered up lab leak in China and the ensuing conspiracy to keep it all a secret.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

XFrequentist 5y ago

You’re missing something. The author is saying that there was a lab leak involving delta, not that delta originated via a lab leak. The latter claim would indeed be a red flag, but the former is just describing a very well-documented event.

mike00632 5y ago
"... very well documented event"
- throwaway829 5y ago
  Not sure what you mean by quoting that but there's not much controversy that Delta leaked from a Biosafety Level-3 facility in Taipei. https://fortune.com/2021/12/10/taiwan-investigates-covid-lab-leak-scientist-tests-positive-bite-infected-mouse/ https://fortune.com/2021/12/10/taiwan-investigates-covid-lab... https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4371080 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4371080 https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-lab-worker-mouse-bite-covid-19-infection-probe-1658736 https://www.newsweek.com/taiwan-lab-worker-mouse-bite-covid-...
  - mike00632 5y ago
    You don't understand why I would challenge you to cite your sources in a thread discussing COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation? Not to mention, I think it's pretty clear to both of us that this "well documented event" is not common knowledge to people who don't follow COVID conspiracy theories.
    - XFrequentist 5y ago
      I think this event qualifies as “well documented” by any reasonable standard, there was official public disclosure and an open investigation. As one quick example, here’s a news clip including an interview with the Taiwanese health minister discussing details of the (then) ongoing investigation: https://youtu.be/ecpNq0jz7cs https://youtu.be/ecpNq0jz7cs You can trivially find many more official statements about the event and subsequent investigation, if you like.

jbc1 5y ago

Chuck “Taiwan delta lab” in to google news and you’ll find a hundred articles on it. I don’t know which in particular you would find reputable.

myblake 5y ago

It was really poorly worded and confused me too until I saw the dates on the articles linked out.

kelnos 5y ago

Note that the article isn't suggesting that delta originated as a lab leak, just that some Taiwanese scientists were experimenting with delta in a lab (after delta had been seen widely in the wild), and a lab worker there was infected by delta in the lab (rather than getting it outside), and then brought that infection outside of the lab. That's a lab leak, but it's not the origin of delta.

dljones 5y ago

S/he clarified the delta thing: "[Edited, 5 Jan 2021, to add: Many people have been confused about the statement about delta, so I must have worded it poorly. I’m not saying delta originated in a lab leak. I’m saying delta escaped from a lab late in 2021 where it was being used in research. It’s an example of a research-related lab leak.]"