3 ms·

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.nl

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.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      It does sound like you have a framework which may admit the possibility of lab-leak if specific evidence is found, in this case probably contemporaneous documentation of exactly that happening. I actually think we are largely in agreement then, I think though that it is very difficult to apply statistics here to gauge the likelihood of one or another event being true in the absence of much stronger evidence in certain directions. I'm only wedging my toes in the door of a not closed case, making no claim either way.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        From my perspective there is a large weight on the case that the "lab leak hypothesis" is not true. To present it as equally likely is very misleading.
- kaitaincps 4y ago
  The main reason to suspect that gain of function research on bat-borne sarbecoviruses was taking place at the WIV is that we know that gain of function research on bat-borne sarbecoviruses was taking place at the WIV.

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.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    It does sound like you have a framework which may admit the possibility of lab-leak if specific evidence is found, in this case probably contemporaneous documentation of exactly that happening. I actually think we are largely in agreement then, I think though that it is very difficult to apply statistics here to gauge the likelihood of one or another event being true in the absence of much stronger evidence in certain directions. I'm only wedging my toes in the door of a not closed case, making no claim either way.
    - bayesian_horse 4y ago
      From my perspective there is a large weight on the case that the "lab leak hypothesis" is not true. To present it as equally likely is very misleading.
kaitaincps 4y ago
The main reason to suspect that gain of function research on bat-borne sarbecoviruses was taking place at the WIV is that we know that gain of function research on bat-borne sarbecoviruses was taking place at the WIV.