4 ms·

> For the lab-leak theory to be true, a "pandemicable" zoonotic virus (a VERY rare thing) has to somehow make it into a lab undetected. That's not a necessary

> For the lab-leak theory to be true, a "pandemicable" zoonotic virus (a VERY rare thing) has to somehow make it into a lab undetected. That's not a necessary condition and it's ridiculous to think that's the only hinge by which the hypothesis stands. Another far more plausible idea is that a mistake occurred somewhere and it was covered up. This has occurred before in authoritarian regimes before. An input to a molecular clock is a mutation rate, which I imagine would be hard to quantify given the unknown source and the possibility of gain of function research.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Of course it is a necessary condition. In order to leak from the lab, the virus has to be collected and be propagated in the lab. And all the rest isn't plausible if they knew the bat virus they had in their vials had the potential to cause a pandemic. But it must have had some rare "talent" that was as yet undiscovered. Otherwise nothing of the "lab leak" hypothesis makes sense. You can't "gain-of-function" just any virus and end up with a killer pandemic. You can interpret a molecular clock or a phylogenetic tree qualitatively, and you would expect to see multiple samples with the protein in question, but which have individually acquired so many mutations that they must have diverged before the dynamic. That would mean the protein sequence in question predates the pandemic by a long shot, unless you think the Wuhan lab tested the Virus in Laos...
- dpbriggs 4y ago
  I guess the disagreement is around the word "undetected". It's possible some failure was covered up and I trust the Chinese government to be capable enough to do that. > virus has to be collected and be propagated in the lab That's a weaker statement than the one I replied to. I'm referring to the how it's necessary that it needs to a "pandemicable" virus that enters a lab "undetected" and I guess leaves the lab "undetected". There's several possible ways the virus could have made it into Wuhan: - Improper handling occurs somewhere in transporting the samples from bat caves (w/e) to the lab. - Improper handling of samples in the lab. - Improper disposal of samples in the lab. - Entering a more speculative area; bat samples are used in experiments and improper handling or disposal occurs. - Deeper into speculation: Improper handling/disposal of viruses used in gain of function research. And when any of the above occurs, use the state's staggering power to cover it up. > You can interpret a molecular clock or a phylogenetic tree qualitatively I'm sure that could work but I imagine the error bars are quite wide as otherwise that's definitive proof and we wouldn't be discussing this online. > unless you think the Wuhan lab tested the Virus in Laos Nice attempt at absurd rhetoric. Strengthens the argument doesn't it?
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    The whole point is that the virus that was collected would already need to have some properties that predispose it to become a dangerous pandemic. Which is unlikely because those Viruses are pretty rare. And the rest of your comment just tells me you know nothing about biology.
    - noptd 4y ago
      So the crux of your argument is that it's more likely that a virus with that type of predisposition occured in nature in a specific area around the Wuhan market as opposed to being sampled from one of many areas, potentially modified, and then leaked into said area? Seems unlikely considering the rarity as you pointed out. >And the rest of your comment just tells me you know nothing about biology. No need to resort to ad-hominems ; all it achieves is tainting your future responses on the topic with a lingering question of whether they are being made in good faith.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        It's not ad-hominem if it's true. I really don't have the energy to debunk every "argument" that is borne out of misunderstandings about basic biology. The alternative hypothesis is not that a very dangerous zoonotic virus emerges in a specific area around Wuhan (which also isn't really the agreed upon origin anyway), but rather that it emerges anywhere and causes a pandemic. Your argument here is a basic misunderstanding about how random processes work. Our observation that Wuhan was the first epicenter of this pandemic already preconditions us to assume a pandemic-capable Virus emerged there in some form or another. Such viruses are indeed rarities. But they exist and every once in a while they come into contact with Humans and cause a pandemic. However this is not the same likelihood as with the lab leak hypothesis, because collecting viruses for labs is an event that happens multiple orders of magnitude less often than contacts between animals and Humans. So while it is a rare coincidence that a lab would collect a killer virus when randomly collecting bat viruses, it is not so strange that every once in a while a novel pandemic virus makes the jump from animals to Humans somewhere in the world.
    - 4y ago
- kaitaincps 4y ago
  Wait, wait...does this whole debate hinge around the idea that you think the WIV staff are reliable, honest agents? The very idea is hilarious. They operate within an authoritarian regime that restricts their freedom of speech and makes threats against them and their families for non-compliance. It is irrational to trust anything they report as being true.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    It's even more irrational to just assume the opposite or whatever you want to be true.
    - kaitaincps 4y ago
      Well, that's an interesting question. If the public health dept wants to inspect a restaurant to make sure its hygiene standards are adequate, and the restaurant goes out of its way to try to delay or block such an inspection, should we lean towards: a) The restaurant has something to hide and is therefore likely to have poor standards or b) It is irrational to hold ANY position on the hygiene standards of the restaurant, given the lack of dispositive data ?
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        I completely reject he analogy between health inspections of a restaurant and blaming a country for a pandemic using a highly speculative theory. It feels so ridiculous I don't know where to start.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
> covered up. This has occurred before in authoritarian regimes before. To be fair, cover ups aren't exclusive to authoritarian regimes. Futhermore, in this case, The West seems to be willingly and shamelessly towing the Communist Party line. Can we add conspiracy to the smell being given off? Science should be obcessed with truth. Geez. Looks like science isn't immune to cover ups and conspiracy either. "What is the source?" will take a place next to "Who killed JFK?". p.s. Slightly off topic, but off the media sources mentioned (e.g., CNN) how much of their revenue comes from Big Pharma or Big X that wouldn't fare well if lab leak could be supported?
- neaden 4y ago
  You know we know exactly who killed JFK and it's not controversial by anyone who seriously looks into it right?
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    You missed the point. It not about what you think you know. It's about what everyone else believes. Truth is a function of trust. That's worth repeating: Truth is a function of trust. Given the actions of all the Covid-related actors, only a fool would be rolling out the trust red carpet. You know we know this, right?
- peteradio 4y ago
  JFK was an obvious government coverup not sure why you would choose to group the two.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Obvious?
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      I like that the two sibling comments above are "Obviously, everyone knows {polar opposites}."

bayesian_horse 4y ago

Of course it is a necessary condition. In order to leak from the lab, the virus has to be collected and be propagated in the lab. And all the rest isn't plausible if they knew the bat virus they had in their vials had the potential to cause a pandemic. But it must have had some rare "talent" that was as yet undiscovered. Otherwise nothing of the "lab leak" hypothesis makes sense. You can't "gain-of-function" just any virus and end up with a killer pandemic. You can interpret a molecular clock or a phylogenetic tree qualitatively, and you would expect to see multiple samples with the protein in question, but which have individually acquired so many mutations that they must have diverged before the dynamic. That would mean the protein sequence in question predates the pandemic by a long shot, unless you think the Wuhan lab tested the Virus in Laos...

dpbriggs 4y ago
I guess the disagreement is around the word "undetected". It's possible some failure was covered up and I trust the Chinese government to be capable enough to do that. > virus has to be collected and be propagated in the lab That's a weaker statement than the one I replied to. I'm referring to the how it's necessary that it needs to a "pandemicable" virus that enters a lab "undetected" and I guess leaves the lab "undetected". There's several possible ways the virus could have made it into Wuhan: - Improper handling occurs somewhere in transporting the samples from bat caves (w/e) to the lab. - Improper handling of samples in the lab. - Improper disposal of samples in the lab. - Entering a more speculative area; bat samples are used in experiments and improper handling or disposal occurs. - Deeper into speculation: Improper handling/disposal of viruses used in gain of function research. And when any of the above occurs, use the state's staggering power to cover it up. > You can interpret a molecular clock or a phylogenetic tree qualitatively I'm sure that could work but I imagine the error bars are quite wide as otherwise that's definitive proof and we wouldn't be discussing this online. > unless you think the Wuhan lab tested the Virus in Laos Nice attempt at absurd rhetoric. Strengthens the argument doesn't it?
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  The whole point is that the virus that was collected would already need to have some properties that predispose it to become a dangerous pandemic. Which is unlikely because those Viruses are pretty rare. And the rest of your comment just tells me you know nothing about biology.
  - noptd 4y ago
    So the crux of your argument is that it's more likely that a virus with that type of predisposition occured in nature in a specific area around the Wuhan market as opposed to being sampled from one of many areas, potentially modified, and then leaked into said area? Seems unlikely considering the rarity as you pointed out. >And the rest of your comment just tells me you know nothing about biology. No need to resort to ad-hominems ; all it achieves is tainting your future responses on the topic with a lingering question of whether they are being made in good faith.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      It's not ad-hominem if it's true. I really don't have the energy to debunk every "argument" that is borne out of misunderstandings about basic biology. The alternative hypothesis is not that a very dangerous zoonotic virus emerges in a specific area around Wuhan (which also isn't really the agreed upon origin anyway), but rather that it emerges anywhere and causes a pandemic. Your argument here is a basic misunderstanding about how random processes work. Our observation that Wuhan was the first epicenter of this pandemic already preconditions us to assume a pandemic-capable Virus emerged there in some form or another. Such viruses are indeed rarities. But they exist and every once in a while they come into contact with Humans and cause a pandemic. However this is not the same likelihood as with the lab leak hypothesis, because collecting viruses for labs is an event that happens multiple orders of magnitude less often than contacts between animals and Humans. So while it is a rare coincidence that a lab would collect a killer virus when randomly collecting bat viruses, it is not so strange that every once in a while a novel pandemic virus makes the jump from animals to Humans somewhere in the world.
  - 4y ago
kaitaincps 4y ago
Wait, wait...does this whole debate hinge around the idea that you think the WIV staff are reliable, honest agents? The very idea is hilarious. They operate within an authoritarian regime that restricts their freedom of speech and makes threats against them and their families for non-compliance. It is irrational to trust anything they report as being true.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  It's even more irrational to just assume the opposite or whatever you want to be true.
  - kaitaincps 4y ago
    Well, that's an interesting question. If the public health dept wants to inspect a restaurant to make sure its hygiene standards are adequate, and the restaurant goes out of its way to try to delay or block such an inspection, should we lean towards: a) The restaurant has something to hide and is therefore likely to have poor standards or b) It is irrational to hold ANY position on the hygiene standards of the restaurant, given the lack of dispositive data ?
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      I completely reject he analogy between health inspections of a restaurant and blaming a country for a pandemic using a highly speculative theory. It feels so ridiculous I don't know where to start.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

> covered up. This has occurred before in authoritarian regimes before. To be fair, cover ups aren't exclusive to authoritarian regimes. Futhermore, in this case, The West seems to be willingly and shamelessly towing the Communist Party line. Can we add conspiracy to the smell being given off? Science should be obcessed with truth. Geez. Looks like science isn't immune to cover ups and conspiracy either. "What is the source?" will take a place next to "Who killed JFK?". p.s. Slightly off topic, but off the media sources mentioned (e.g., CNN) how much of their revenue comes from Big Pharma or Big X that wouldn't fare well if lab leak could be supported?

neaden 4y ago
You know we know exactly who killed JFK and it's not controversial by anyone who seriously looks into it right?
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  You missed the point. It not about what you think you know. It's about what everyone else believes. Truth is a function of trust. That's worth repeating: Truth is a function of trust. Given the actions of all the Covid-related actors, only a fool would be rolling out the trust red carpet. You know we know this, right?
peteradio 4y ago
JFK was an obvious government coverup not sure why you would choose to group the two.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Obvious?
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    I like that the two sibling comments above are "Obviously, everyone knows {polar opposites}."