6 ms·

This is definitely revisionist history. At the height of the pandemic this would absolutely get you accused of misinformation. Then two very different possibili

This is definitely revisionist history. At the height of the pandemic this would absolutely get you accused of misinformation. Then two very different possibilities were conflated - that it was leaked from a lab or that it was engineered in a lab - and the much lower likelihood of the latter was used to dismiss the former.

jonathanstrange 5y ago
Absolutely not. You're mixing up social media with reality. I can say with great confidence that I was at all times in this pandemic very accurately and well-informed. The lab theory has been openly discussed since May 2020, even earlier if you were caring about getting informed. Both lab theories were common and discussed everywhere. On social media and blogs the discussion is always distorted. Just don't use them as a source of information - although, to be fair, there were many good pointers to information on HN. Thanks to some hypochondriacs at HN, I was able to predict the development of the pandemic pretty precisely since January 2020. My work colleagues were impressed.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  While you're technically right that the criteria of 'some number of people where that number is > 1 considered it a possibility' was met I don't think you can so quickly dismiss how quickly the narrative changed once Biden actually announced the fact that the intelligence community was split 70-30 on this. If I had brought up the lab leak theory in my social groups I would have been labelled as QAnon (or charitably adjacent), so there was also definitely a real-world impact of social media, they're not nearly as separate as to say that mixing them up is actually a straight up error. In addition, there was a lot of initial pushback against any lab leak theory from virologists involved in gain of function research (regardless of whether gain of function engineering itself was the least plausible of the two leak theories). Part of the issue here is definitely what we mean when we say something was 'considered possible' - here I'm thinking quite explicitly of mainstream and majoritarian perspectives since that's what impacts most people who aren't able (or allowed) to meaningfully contribute to a debate on its technical merits.
  - jonathanstrange 5y ago
    I don't deny that social media have a huge influence nowadays on public opinion. I totally agree with you about that. As for the initial pushback of the lab theory by virologists, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for, though. Yes, most virologists rightly considered the lab theories way less likely from the start, and I also remember distinctly that some international scientists who had been to the Wuhan lab (or collaborated with researchers from the lab) defended their Chinese colleagues against unfounded allegations in early 2020. This assessment is confirmed by the recent studies mentioned in the above linked article. Even if you think they got it wrong and these studies are not as conclusive as they claim, I don't think you can fault virologists for voicing their informed opinions about what they overall consider most likely. It is in the nature of scientific work that you consider some hypotheses more likely to be true than others.
- native_samples 5y ago
  No, this is nonsense. Openly discussed where? In May 2020 virologists had written an open letter that stated in no uncertain terms that anyone claiming it could have come from a lab was spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. This in turn caused Facebook to simply ban any discussion of the possibility entirely. No journal or newspaper would publish anything about this at all. Discussion was driven underground, which is why D.R.A.S.T.I.C. (who found most of the evidence for it) was made up of anonymous people. Chasing this story resulted in a New York Times reporter being fired; his investigation eventually had to be published on his own Medium blog and in some physics journal. The lab leak theory was utterly and completely squashed in the public realm by nothing more substantial than a bunch of virologists saying "it wasn't us". Trying to claim it was never suppressed is an Orwellian attempt to rewrite of history.
mcphage 5y ago
> and the much lower likelihood of the latter was used to dismiss the former. Actually more often it was the opposite—the open possibility that it leaked from a lab, was used to prop up assertions that it was engineered in a lab.
- bigDinosaur 5y ago
  'Open possibility' as you stated implied there was open and honest debate about any of this. The absolute shift in what was acceptable to say in the media after Biden's announcement of the intelligence community not being totally decided on whether it had leaked showed how much of a lie that was. Now it's fine to talk about, but I don't really appreciate the revisionist history that it was actually an area of open and honest debate in 2020 and the first half of 2021.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > actually an area of open and honest debate in 2020 and the first half of 2021. Of course it wasn’t. On one hand, there was no evidence of anything either way—partially due to the situation, and partially due to China not wanting to answer any questions. And on the other hand, half the country was trying to use any possibility as a wedge to say “look China causes this on purpose as a deliberate attack!” At no point was there a possibility of open debate. Honestly, there still isn’t—there’s no good evidence in either direction, so it’s just people shouting their side’s talking points at each other.

jonathanstrange 5y ago

Absolutely not. You're mixing up social media with reality. I can say with great confidence that I was at all times in this pandemic very accurately and well-informed. The lab theory has been openly discussed since May 2020, even earlier if you were caring about getting informed. Both lab theories were common and discussed everywhere. On social media and blogs the discussion is always distorted. Just don't use them as a source of information - although, to be fair, there were many good pointers to information on HN. Thanks to some hypochondriacs at HN, I was able to predict the development of the pandemic pretty precisely since January 2020. My work colleagues were impressed.

bigDinosaur 5y ago
While you're technically right that the criteria of 'some number of people where that number is > 1 considered it a possibility' was met I don't think you can so quickly dismiss how quickly the narrative changed once Biden actually announced the fact that the intelligence community was split 70-30 on this. If I had brought up the lab leak theory in my social groups I would have been labelled as QAnon (or charitably adjacent), so there was also definitely a real-world impact of social media, they're not nearly as separate as to say that mixing them up is actually a straight up error. In addition, there was a lot of initial pushback against any lab leak theory from virologists involved in gain of function research (regardless of whether gain of function engineering itself was the least plausible of the two leak theories). Part of the issue here is definitely what we mean when we say something was 'considered possible' - here I'm thinking quite explicitly of mainstream and majoritarian perspectives since that's what impacts most people who aren't able (or allowed) to meaningfully contribute to a debate on its technical merits.
- jonathanstrange 5y ago
  I don't deny that social media have a huge influence nowadays on public opinion. I totally agree with you about that. As for the initial pushback of the lab theory by virologists, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for, though. Yes, most virologists rightly considered the lab theories way less likely from the start, and I also remember distinctly that some international scientists who had been to the Wuhan lab (or collaborated with researchers from the lab) defended their Chinese colleagues against unfounded allegations in early 2020. This assessment is confirmed by the recent studies mentioned in the above linked article. Even if you think they got it wrong and these studies are not as conclusive as they claim, I don't think you can fault virologists for voicing their informed opinions about what they overall consider most likely. It is in the nature of scientific work that you consider some hypotheses more likely to be true than others.
native_samples 5y ago
No, this is nonsense. Openly discussed where? In May 2020 virologists had written an open letter that stated in no uncertain terms that anyone claiming it could have come from a lab was spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. This in turn caused Facebook to simply ban any discussion of the possibility entirely. No journal or newspaper would publish anything about this at all. Discussion was driven underground, which is why D.R.A.S.T.I.C. (who found most of the evidence for it) was made up of anonymous people. Chasing this story resulted in a New York Times reporter being fired; his investigation eventually had to be published on his own Medium blog and in some physics journal. The lab leak theory was utterly and completely squashed in the public realm by nothing more substantial than a bunch of virologists saying "it wasn't us". Trying to claim it was never suppressed is an Orwellian attempt to rewrite of history.

mcphage 5y ago

> and the much lower likelihood of the latter was used to dismiss the former. Actually more often it was the opposite—the open possibility that it leaked from a lab, was used to prop up assertions that it was engineered in a lab.

bigDinosaur 5y ago
'Open possibility' as you stated implied there was open and honest debate about any of this. The absolute shift in what was acceptable to say in the media after Biden's announcement of the intelligence community not being totally decided on whether it had leaked showed how much of a lie that was. Now it's fine to talk about, but I don't really appreciate the revisionist history that it was actually an area of open and honest debate in 2020 and the first half of 2021.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > actually an area of open and honest debate in 2020 and the first half of 2021. Of course it wasn’t. On one hand, there was no evidence of anything either way—partially due to the situation, and partially due to China not wanting to answer any questions. And on the other hand, half the country was trying to use any possibility as a wedge to say “look China causes this on purpose as a deliberate attack!” At no point was there a possibility of open debate. Honestly, there still isn’t—there’s no good evidence in either direction, so it’s just people shouting their side’s talking points at each other.