6 ms·

However, there is only evidence to the contrary, the entire stretch from the Wuhan Institute of Virology to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the confirmed

However, there is only evidence to the contrary, the entire stretch from the Wuhan Institute of Virology to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market as the confirmed hotspot of the outbreak (samples from cages have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2) is entirely unaccounted for by this theory (this is about 20 minutes by car), the closest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in Laos and Vietnam (BANAL-236, BANAL-52) and not in China, and (according to US studies) there is genetic evidence for animal-human-animal-human transfer. As far as I am concerned, this is yet another attempt to make reality match preconceived politics. (Because reality is just another political game: who cares what may have actually happened, as long as we may own somebody?) Edit: To me, the real problem with this kind of games is that they tend to turn into an existential challenge or even threat. "If we can't own them, this will mean their victory, we may never allow this to happen! Otherwise, we're doomed."

4bpp 4y ago
But then I've heard assertions to the effect of a WIV research group performing sample collections at one of the caves in South East Asian countries where the closest wild relatives were found. (That they collected samples far afield is, as far as I know, uncontroversial; people are just arguing about whether they collected them at any of the specific closest-relative sites, which seems like a moot point if there is already more than one closest relative and so there could be more somewhere we didn't independently check) If anything, animal-human-animal-human transfer seems to serve to lessen the significance of the distance between the institute and the market and the samples from cages (since this makes a "researcher got infected in lab leak and then went to the market, infecting someone there, who passed it to the caged animals" sequence possible). Either way, I rarely see the same type of rigour or skepticism being applied to the natural-origin hypothesis (why is closest relatives being in a random cave in Laos a stronger argument against provenance through a far-away lab that does field work than against provenance through a wildlife market that is equally far away?), which is a hallmark of motivated reasoning. Motivation, here, is clearly plentiful, from researchers who could be personally scrutinised or have their scientific work encumbered by kneejerk procedural impositions to all the hundreds of millions of people for whom one or the other outcome would become a supreme cudgel to beat their outgroup with.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  > I rarely see the same type of rigour or skepticism being applied to the natural-origin hypothesis Isn't the natural-origin the default assumption? There are no lab-leak theories for polio or smallpox as far as I know.
  - 4bpp 4y ago
    Something that is overwhelmingly most likely in a general case may not be overwhelmingly most likely in a specific one given additional information. The vast majority of people do not die of violent causes, and yet we still have murder investigations. Relative probability is not preserved by conditioning: in an investigation seeking to establish if someone was murdered, the general prevalence also does not backpropagate to affect appropriate levels of skepticism towards concrete possible mechanism of death. For example, if you had a mysterious case of arsenic poisoning where you had trouble in explaining how arsenic wound up in the dead person's body except by teleportation, it would be unsound to argue that it wasn't murder because teleportation is not known to exist, but the theory that it teleported into the victim naturally should be above scrutiny since natural deaths are extremely common.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      Yes, but if you had someone who died of an apparent heart attack, you could also spin all kinds of theories about how they were poisoned with an undetectable agent cooked up by a foreign intelligence agency.
      - 4bpp 4y ago
        Sure, but if that's the metaphor you want to invoke for this situation, you need to actually argue that the probabilities of the "lab leak" vs. "natural origin" scenarios are actually similar, _in this particular case_, to "undetectable agent" vs. "natural heart attack" - which brings us back to having to comb through the evidence on both sides. I think we are bound to walk in circles as long as we don't separate the proposition that it was in fact a lab leak from the proposition that further open-ended investigation is necessary; it is my impression that natural origin proponents mostly are strongly against both (whether they think the latter is too costly, or think it will be used to get the former accepted when it is actually false, or think the former should be treated as false even if it is true), but I really only want to push for the latter (it's not like I know anything about virus genetics myself anyway!).
pessimizer 4y ago
> the closest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in Laos and Vietnam (BANAL-236, BANAL-52) and not in China Is this supposed to be evidence for or against?
- masswerk 4y ago
  This is meant to counter the idea of ARS-CoV-2 being somehow derived from RaTG13, which is still around.

4bpp 4y ago

But then I've heard assertions to the effect of a WIV research group performing sample collections at one of the caves in South East Asian countries where the closest wild relatives were found. (That they collected samples far afield is, as far as I know, uncontroversial; people are just arguing about whether they collected them at any of the specific closest-relative sites, which seems like a moot point if there is already more than one closest relative and so there could be more somewhere we didn't independently check) If anything, animal-human-animal-human transfer seems to serve to lessen the significance of the distance between the institute and the market and the samples from cages (since this makes a "researcher got infected in lab leak and then went to the market, infecting someone there, who passed it to the caged animals" sequence possible). Either way, I rarely see the same type of rigour or skepticism being applied to the natural-origin hypothesis (why is closest relatives being in a random cave in Laos a stronger argument against provenance through a far-away lab that does field work than against provenance through a wildlife market that is equally far away?), which is a hallmark of motivated reasoning. Motivation, here, is clearly plentiful, from researchers who could be personally scrutinised or have their scientific work encumbered by kneejerk procedural impositions to all the hundreds of millions of people for whom one or the other outcome would become a supreme cudgel to beat their outgroup with.

hotpotamus 4y ago
> I rarely see the same type of rigour or skepticism being applied to the natural-origin hypothesis Isn't the natural-origin the default assumption? There are no lab-leak theories for polio or smallpox as far as I know.
- 4bpp 4y ago
  Something that is overwhelmingly most likely in a general case may not be overwhelmingly most likely in a specific one given additional information. The vast majority of people do not die of violent causes, and yet we still have murder investigations. Relative probability is not preserved by conditioning: in an investigation seeking to establish if someone was murdered, the general prevalence also does not backpropagate to affect appropriate levels of skepticism towards concrete possible mechanism of death. For example, if you had a mysterious case of arsenic poisoning where you had trouble in explaining how arsenic wound up in the dead person's body except by teleportation, it would be unsound to argue that it wasn't murder because teleportation is not known to exist, but the theory that it teleported into the victim naturally should be above scrutiny since natural deaths are extremely common.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Yes, but if you had someone who died of an apparent heart attack, you could also spin all kinds of theories about how they were poisoned with an undetectable agent cooked up by a foreign intelligence agency.
    - 4bpp 4y ago
      Sure, but if that's the metaphor you want to invoke for this situation, you need to actually argue that the probabilities of the "lab leak" vs. "natural origin" scenarios are actually similar, _in this particular case_, to "undetectable agent" vs. "natural heart attack" - which brings us back to having to comb through the evidence on both sides. I think we are bound to walk in circles as long as we don't separate the proposition that it was in fact a lab leak from the proposition that further open-ended investigation is necessary; it is my impression that natural origin proponents mostly are strongly against both (whether they think the latter is too costly, or think it will be used to get the former accepted when it is actually false, or think the former should be treated as false even if it is true), but I really only want to push for the latter (it's not like I know anything about virus genetics myself anyway!).

pessimizer 4y ago

> the closest relatives to SARS-CoV-2 have been found in Laos and Vietnam (BANAL-236, BANAL-52) and not in China Is this supposed to be evidence for or against?

masswerk 4y ago
This is meant to counter the idea of ARS-CoV-2 being somehow derived from RaTG13, which is still around.