3 ms·

What makes you put on evidence in quotes? The deletion of the bat coronavirus database at Wuhan institute of virology prior to the pandemic is an undisputed an

by elif 4y ago

What makes you put on evidence in quotes? The deletion of the bat coronavirus database at Wuhan institute of virology prior to the pandemic is an undisputed and central fact. Your quotation marks do nothing to diminish this fact alone's inherent demand that Occam's razor be inverted.

rzz3 4y ago
Sure, but Occam’s is a logical shortcut, not a method of scientific conclusion. I personally suspect a lab leak origin, but I can’t say I have conclusive evidence. I just find it extremely likely based on a myriad of circumstantial evidence, and a lack of any conclusive evidence of natural origin.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  I find it extremely unlikely given what I know about biology and how viruses and epidemiology works. Lack of transparency in China is no proof, it's standard operating procedure. They'll try to CYA even if they didn't do anything wrong, maybe especially then. The simplest and most probable way the pandemic started really is the way pandemics usually start: by a pathogen jumping from an animal species to Humans, without passing through a lab whatsoever.
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    Like rzz3, I am suspicious of a lab leak (but reserve judgement). You say the lab leak is unlikely, but do you know better than the WHO? From the article: > In this we are in line with the US government, the G7, the World Health Organisation and the general public, all of whom are on record as saying that they think a leak from a Wuhan virology lab is a strong possibility that deserves to be investigated. The latest WHO report two weeks ago confirms this, saying that it is important “to evaluate the possibility of the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population through a laboratory incident”. China's behavior is suspicious, but as you point out there could be any number of reasons for this. However, that's hardly a basis for exoneration. In either case, China's behavior is surely a confounding factor in understanding what actually happened.
  - ikrenji 4y ago
    it is really not extremely unlikely. mainly because it happened multiple times previously in china with sars epidemic. there is a precedent https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416634/
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      Just so we're clear -- your evidence for lab leak is based on the way samples were handled after the last big zoonotic pandemic in China.
      - noptd 4y ago
        Odd that you think this is some sort of gotcha given that the best predictor of future behavior is, in fact, past behavior.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        There's a wild leap of faith between saying someone handled samples badly in the past to saying they are responsible for the current pandemic.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      There's also a difference between leaking a novel virus and one that has been circulating. Also the accusation of "gain of function" experiments making the virus more dangerous. Of course it is not extremely unlikely that a virus escapes from a lab. To me it seems very unlikely that this particular virus first escaped from this lab and especially that it wasn't a threat before being collected.
      - peteradio 4y ago
        > Also the accusation of "gain of function" experiments making the virus more dangerous. Is that a complete sentence? What are you saying? Are you dismissing out of hand the possibility that gain of function research was being done at the time of the first discovery of SARS-COV-2 on the same type of viruses?
mikeyouse 4y ago
This is exactly what I mean about insinuation. Spell out specifically what you think a deleted database proves and the sequence of events that would lead to it being deleted. The timeline of this stuff is extremely important to disproving some of the sillier claims. This database that's a "Central Fact" was deleted several months before the first case of a virus with an unmitigated R0 of >5. They would have to know there was a novel coronavirus spreading for months before the rest of the world. Aside from the rest of the obvious ways everyone else would know, DNA phylogeny of all known cases disproves this. The conceit falls apart immediately.
- Izkata 4y ago
  It was taken offline in Sept 2019, and "undetected patient zero" estimations go back to Oct 2019. Not that far off. Their story for why they took it offline has also changed over time. And at least as of the beginning of this year, it's still not been made available to other researchers.

by elif 4y ago

rzz3 4y ago

Sure, but Occam’s is a logical shortcut, not a method of scientific conclusion. I personally suspect a lab leak origin, but I can’t say I have conclusive evidence. I just find it extremely likely based on a myriad of circumstantial evidence, and a lack of any conclusive evidence of natural origin.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
I find it extremely unlikely given what I know about biology and how viruses and epidemiology works. Lack of transparency in China is no proof, it's standard operating procedure. They'll try to CYA even if they didn't do anything wrong, maybe especially then. The simplest and most probable way the pandemic started really is the way pandemics usually start: by a pathogen jumping from an animal species to Humans, without passing through a lab whatsoever.
- nescioquid 4y ago
  Like rzz3, I am suspicious of a lab leak (but reserve judgement). You say the lab leak is unlikely, but do you know better than the WHO? From the article: > In this we are in line with the US government, the G7, the World Health Organisation and the general public, all of whom are on record as saying that they think a leak from a Wuhan virology lab is a strong possibility that deserves to be investigated. The latest WHO report two weeks ago confirms this, saying that it is important “to evaluate the possibility of the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the human population through a laboratory incident”. China's behavior is suspicious, but as you point out there could be any number of reasons for this. However, that's hardly a basis for exoneration. In either case, China's behavior is surely a confounding factor in understanding what actually happened.
- ikrenji 4y ago
  it is really not extremely unlikely. mainly because it happened multiple times previously in china with sars epidemic. there is a precedent https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416634/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416634/
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Just so we're clear -- your evidence for lab leak is based on the way samples were handled after the last big zoonotic pandemic in China.
    - noptd 4y ago
      Odd that you think this is some sort of gotcha given that the best predictor of future behavior is, in fact, past behavior.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        There's a wild leap of faith between saying someone handled samples badly in the past to saying they are responsible for the current pandemic.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    There's also a difference between leaking a novel virus and one that has been circulating. Also the accusation of "gain of function" experiments making the virus more dangerous. Of course it is not extremely unlikely that a virus escapes from a lab. To me it seems very unlikely that this particular virus first escaped from this lab and especially that it wasn't a threat before being collected.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      > Also the accusation of "gain of function" experiments making the virus more dangerous. Is that a complete sentence? What are you saying? Are you dismissing out of hand the possibility that gain of function research was being done at the time of the first discovery of SARS-COV-2 on the same type of viruses?

mikeyouse 4y ago

This is exactly what I mean about insinuation. Spell out specifically what you think a deleted database proves and the sequence of events that would lead to it being deleted. The timeline of this stuff is extremely important to disproving some of the sillier claims. This database that's a "Central Fact" was deleted several months before the first case of a virus with an unmitigated R0 of >5. They would have to know there was a novel coronavirus spreading for months before the rest of the world. Aside from the rest of the obvious ways everyone else would know, DNA phylogeny of all known cases disproves this. The conceit falls apart immediately.

Izkata 4y ago
It was taken offline in Sept 2019, and "undetected patient zero" estimations go back to Oct 2019. Not that far off. Their story for why they took it offline has also changed over time. And at least as of the beginning of this year, it's still not been made available to other researchers.