4 ms·

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 eviden

by 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?
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        You don't need to "dismiss the possibility" to say it's unlikely. There's really zero evidence this kind of research has been done a) at all in this lab b) on this Virus c) the virus leaked. Nor is it even clear the virus originated in Wuhan at all. "Lab leak hypothesis" sometimes includes the "gain of function" theme and sometimes it doesn't. I find neither very likely, neither has any evidence to back it up. I still think the zoonotic hypothesis is the most likely truth, if not for the fact that we know this has happened so often in history. Any other hypothesis needs extraordinarily good evidence to convince me otherwise.

by rzz3 4y ago

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?
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      You don't need to "dismiss the possibility" to say it's unlikely. There's really zero evidence this kind of research has been done a) at all in this lab b) on this Virus c) the virus leaked. Nor is it even clear the virus originated in Wuhan at all. "Lab leak hypothesis" sometimes includes the "gain of function" theme and sometimes it doesn't. I find neither very likely, neither has any evidence to back it up. I still think the zoonotic hypothesis is the most likely truth, if not for the fact that we know this has happened so often in history. Any other hypothesis needs extraordinarily good evidence to convince me otherwise.