3 ms·

Someone writes up a bunch of tweets Omnicron is a lab leak too: 576 points. Three studies suggest it originated from the Wuhan markets: 28 points. Mmm. This

Someone writes up a bunch of tweets Omnicron is a lab leak too: 576 points. Three studies suggest it originated from the Wuhan markets: 28 points. Mmm. This came up recently, and I think it's high relevant to some of the folk posting here: https://jaydaigle.net/blog/replication-crisis-math/ https://jaydaigle.net/blog/replication-crisis-math/ > A lot of psychology results that don’t replicate look a little different from this perspective. Does standing in a power pose for a few seconds make you feel more confident? Probably! It sure feels like it does (seriously, stand up and give it a try right now); and it would be weird if it made you feel worse. > Does it affect you enough, for a long enough time, to matter much? > Probably not. That would also be weird. Papers like these are uncontroversial, because they are probably right. If they were all wrong, it would be weird. Surprising. TED talk worthy. Not impossible... but, probably not.

lgvln 5y ago
OP here. I have been monitoring this post on and off and it seems like a significant number of people are flagging it. It went onto the front page at least twice (both times ranked in the 10s) and disappeared from there. As of now, it is back on and ranked 103. I recognize that there are some questions regarding the papers (they are not peer reviewed yet) but the response to it on HN is both puzzling and troubling.
- bediger4000 5y ago
  How is the response on HN puzzling and troubling? I mean, HN got more polarized during 2016-2020. The issue in question is really, really important to people on one of the poles, and thus becomes an issue to people on the other pole.
  - lgvln 5y ago
    My concern is the spirit of sensible public discourse here on HN. It has nothing to with one’s position on any particular issue. In any case, one would want and need credible information to make a justified judgement, not to have evidence or views contrary to one’s position be simply removed. To have a post from legitimate source flagged/removed from the front page repeatedly _is_ puzzling and troubling. It makes one wonder what sort of post actually gets onto the front page on HN.
    - janto 5y ago
      The credibility of these sources on these topics are no more. Weak claims that no one really contests (the market being an amplifier) being presented in a way that supposedly addresses the core concern (being the epicenter), is not going to cut it. Future events can only be prevented if there is a culture of truthfully addressing concerns and the water has been muddied too much by politics to trust anything here.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
      Users are probably flagging posts like this because they want to minimise the potential for flamewar. Also probably because they are embarrassed by the conspiratorial tone of most comments under such posts. Try not to take it personally. It's difficult to debate anything on the internet when it becomes the subject of conspiracy theories.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
This is likely China covering up their tracks. What do you think it's the more likely source? The Wuhan coronavirus research center doing gain of function research with American money or a the nearby fish market? If you think it's the local fish market, what's the probability that it would have happened in that specific fish market next to a coronavirus research center vs any other fish market in China? Besides, people are bored of COVID and care only about Ukraine. That explains the delta in points.
- Fatnino 5y ago
  It is telling how "wet market", meaning a place where live food is sold, becomes "fish market" when filtered through fact-free sources.
amscanne 5y ago
> Three studies suggest it originated from the Wuhan markets: 28 points. That’s not what the studies suggest. They suggest that it was an important amplification point. Whether or not it originated there is an additional inference. It’s certainly possible, but alternative hypotheses are not dismissed by the market being an amplification point. A busy market is a likely amplification point, regardless of what is being sold. I think that failure to find the virus in any wet market animal or in the wild (from the studies) starts to become its own kind of weak evidence as well. So two things are true: wet market was a likely amplification point and the lack of corroborating evidence for zoonotic origin is troubling. (Though I think its probably the most likely explanation, I don’t think studies like this actually add any new level of certainty and the same reasons to be suspicious remain.)
- janto 5y ago
  Indeed. It's also a problem that the studies are presented in ways where it is easily interpreted as about "the epicenter". The title (and content) should not have been "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic’s start, studies suggest", but rather, as you suggest, an amplification point. I guess that, because wording it in this way would equally support a lab hypothesis, it was unacceptable to (at least) the final person responsible. I am disappointed this gets past the reviewers or that it was introduced by editors. What is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn about Nature and their scientific competency? Should we just let it go?

lgvln 5y ago

OP here. I have been monitoring this post on and off and it seems like a significant number of people are flagging it. It went onto the front page at least twice (both times ranked in the 10s) and disappeared from there. As of now, it is back on and ranked 103. I recognize that there are some questions regarding the papers (they are not peer reviewed yet) but the response to it on HN is both puzzling and troubling.

bediger4000 5y ago
How is the response on HN puzzling and troubling? I mean, HN got more polarized during 2016-2020. The issue in question is really, really important to people on one of the poles, and thus becomes an issue to people on the other pole.
- lgvln 5y ago
  My concern is the spirit of sensible public discourse here on HN. It has nothing to with one’s position on any particular issue. In any case, one would want and need credible information to make a justified judgement, not to have evidence or views contrary to one’s position be simply removed. To have a post from legitimate source flagged/removed from the front page repeatedly _is_ puzzling and troubling. It makes one wonder what sort of post actually gets onto the front page on HN.
  - janto 5y ago
    The credibility of these sources on these topics are no more. Weak claims that no one really contests (the market being an amplifier) being presented in a way that supposedly addresses the core concern (being the epicenter), is not going to cut it. Future events can only be prevented if there is a culture of truthfully addressing concerns and the water has been muddied too much by politics to trust anything here.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
    Users are probably flagging posts like this because they want to minimise the potential for flamewar. Also probably because they are embarrassed by the conspiratorial tone of most comments under such posts. Try not to take it personally. It's difficult to debate anything on the internet when it becomes the subject of conspiracy theories.

jokethrowaway 5y ago

This is likely China covering up their tracks. What do you think it's the more likely source? The Wuhan coronavirus research center doing gain of function research with American money or a the nearby fish market? If you think it's the local fish market, what's the probability that it would have happened in that specific fish market next to a coronavirus research center vs any other fish market in China? Besides, people are bored of COVID and care only about Ukraine. That explains the delta in points.

Fatnino 5y ago
It is telling how "wet market", meaning a place where live food is sold, becomes "fish market" when filtered through fact-free sources.

amscanne 5y ago

> Three studies suggest it originated from the Wuhan markets: 28 points. That’s not what the studies suggest. They suggest that it was an important amplification point. Whether or not it originated there is an additional inference. It’s certainly possible, but alternative hypotheses are not dismissed by the market being an amplification point. A busy market is a likely amplification point, regardless of what is being sold. I think that failure to find the virus in any wet market animal or in the wild (from the studies) starts to become its own kind of weak evidence as well. So two things are true: wet market was a likely amplification point and the lack of corroborating evidence for zoonotic origin is troubling. (Though I think its probably the most likely explanation, I don’t think studies like this actually add any new level of certainty and the same reasons to be suspicious remain.)

janto 5y ago
Indeed. It's also a problem that the studies are presented in ways where it is easily interpreted as about "the epicenter". The title (and content) should not have been "Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic’s start, studies suggest", but rather, as you suggest, an amplification point. I guess that, because wording it in this way would equally support a lab hypothesis, it was unacceptable to (at least) the final person responsible. I am disappointed this gets past the reviewers or that it was introduced by editors. What is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn about Nature and their scientific competency? Should we just let it go?