5 ms·

A pandemic virus circulating in the wild is an incredibly fine-tuned machine. Just mashing together integral parts from two quite different genomes is not going

A pandemic virus circulating in the wild is an incredibly fine-tuned machine. Just mashing together integral parts from two quite different genomes is not going to result in a Variant that is tuned enough. In order to make a Virus virulent and transmissive, it needs to evolve through multiple, probably dozens of hosts, and only if that is on a broad scale, like thousands of such lineages, does it have a chance of success. Even one lab leak isn't enough. The Virus would most likely die out on its own, if not it would get outcompeted by naturally developing variants. The risk of a lab leaking a variant in a way that it would outcompete natural strains is so miniscule compared to natural variants arising and doing the same, it's not worth mentioning.

d0mine 4y ago
Do we have definite proof that the original SARS-CoV-2 hasn't escaped the lab?
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  To what standard? It's the same game with climate change. When only 1% of the scientists dissent, that gives certain people enough confidence to believe the opposite of what the 99% believe.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    I'm always skeptical when people say x% of scientists agree or disagree with a given hypothesis. Most of the time these numbers are flat out wrong or misleading. Most scientists have very complex views on their own domain. Those complexities lead to a very nuanced understanding of topics that we lay people don't fully understand. Most have subtle disagreements on most topics.
    - InitialLastName 4y ago
      You can have even substantial disagreements with other people in your field without negating the possibility that the bulk of your field is in directional alignment with respect to the core of the matter. Climate change is a perfect example: 99% of people who study climate likely agree that a) the Earth is getting warmer on average, b) the warming is substantially exacerbated by human-derived emissions, and c) the medium- and long-term destabilization due to that warming has meaningful potential to have catastrophic effects any biomes, including those inhabited by humans. They likely disagree amongst themselves on a) how much warmer and over what timeline, b) how much of the warming is caused by humans, and c) what the specifics and timeline of the catastrophic effects are likely to be. In situations like the above, attempts to paint disagreement over magnitude as disagreement over direction are misleading at best and disingenuous at worst.
      - xupybd 4y ago
        You are totally correct. The problem goes both ways. One camp will say there is significant disagreement on this issue therefore we need to act in a certain way. While the other side will say the scientists all agree so we have to act another way. But you have to be very specific about the claims you're make when you say scientists agree or disagree on a matter. You also cannot extrapolate even slightly when you do. For example you have made some very specific claims about the climate change consensus. But people often simply say X% of scientists agree on climate change, without defining what they mean about climate change. All of this is also done to support a given course of action. Those courses of action only make sense with a very specific model of climate change. Often a model that is not totally accurate or agreed upon. Then they often incorrectly quote the scientist. Such as Al Gore's famous prediction “Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” When Dr Maslawski was not predicting anything as dramatic. In the other camp you have appeals to Freeman Dyson. But he does agree that man has altered the climate. He simply doesn't think drastic action is required, and that we will be able to counter its impact. Not surprising from the guy that came up with the ideas to harvest the entire energy output of the sun. The details matter and the appeal to authority that all the scientists agree with me is not as good as an argument on the facts.
        bayesian_horse 4y ago
        You can't handle the facts. Seriously. If you don't want to believe what 99% of the experts say, and don't know shit about the actual science - which takes years to understand - it's a pretty good bet you're wrong. Lot's of things can't be broken down to a level non-experts can understand.
        xupybd 4y ago
        Of course, I'm sorry I forgot you are the source of all truth and all who disagree with you don't know anything about actual science. I thank you for my chastisement. I will commence with the self flagellation immediately.
  - d0mine 4y ago
    An Analysis of the Origins of the Covid-19 Pandemic: Interim Report [pdf] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33360216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33360216
reuben_scratton 4y ago
You must know that virologists routinely "serial passage" viruses through animal hosts? Evolving a candidate virus "through multiple, probably dozens of hosts" is what virology labs do. And lab leaks happen All The Time. SARS-1 escaped labs on six separate occasions.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Serial passage actually weakens a Virus because this kind of evolution selects for properties that aren't useful for transmission outside the lab. And virulence usually decreases as well. Animal studies of this nature just don't have the numerical power to modify such properties intentionally.
junofan 4y ago
We have one other piece of evidence: Ecohealth Alliance will not share lab notebooks from Wuhan. As a Bayesian horse, you’ll know this “explains away” the natural origin hypothesis. The belief in a natural origin actually goes down.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Bullshit. Absence of information means the uncertainty is not reduced...

d0mine 4y ago

Do we have definite proof that the original SARS-CoV-2 hasn't escaped the lab?

bayesian_horse 4y ago
To what standard? It's the same game with climate change. When only 1% of the scientists dissent, that gives certain people enough confidence to believe the opposite of what the 99% believe.
- xupybd 4y ago
  I'm always skeptical when people say x% of scientists agree or disagree with a given hypothesis. Most of the time these numbers are flat out wrong or misleading. Most scientists have very complex views on their own domain. Those complexities lead to a very nuanced understanding of topics that we lay people don't fully understand. Most have subtle disagreements on most topics.
  - InitialLastName 4y ago
    You can have even substantial disagreements with other people in your field without negating the possibility that the bulk of your field is in directional alignment with respect to the core of the matter. Climate change is a perfect example: 99% of people who study climate likely agree that a) the Earth is getting warmer on average, b) the warming is substantially exacerbated by human-derived emissions, and c) the medium- and long-term destabilization due to that warming has meaningful potential to have catastrophic effects any biomes, including those inhabited by humans. They likely disagree amongst themselves on a) how much warmer and over what timeline, b) how much of the warming is caused by humans, and c) what the specifics and timeline of the catastrophic effects are likely to be. In situations like the above, attempts to paint disagreement over magnitude as disagreement over direction are misleading at best and disingenuous at worst.
    - xupybd 4y ago
      You are totally correct. The problem goes both ways. One camp will say there is significant disagreement on this issue therefore we need to act in a certain way. While the other side will say the scientists all agree so we have to act another way. But you have to be very specific about the claims you're make when you say scientists agree or disagree on a matter. You also cannot extrapolate even slightly when you do. For example you have made some very specific claims about the climate change consensus. But people often simply say X% of scientists agree on climate change, without defining what they mean about climate change. All of this is also done to support a given course of action. Those courses of action only make sense with a very specific model of climate change. Often a model that is not totally accurate or agreed upon. Then they often incorrectly quote the scientist. Such as Al Gore's famous prediction “Some of the models suggest to Dr Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” When Dr Maslawski was not predicting anything as dramatic. In the other camp you have appeals to Freeman Dyson. But he does agree that man has altered the climate. He simply doesn't think drastic action is required, and that we will be able to counter its impact. Not surprising from the guy that came up with the ideas to harvest the entire energy output of the sun. The details matter and the appeal to authority that all the scientists agree with me is not as good as an argument on the facts.
      - bayesian_horse 4y ago
        You can't handle the facts. Seriously. If you don't want to believe what 99% of the experts say, and don't know shit about the actual science - which takes years to understand - it's a pretty good bet you're wrong. Lot's of things can't be broken down to a level non-experts can understand.
        xupybd 4y ago
        Of course, I'm sorry I forgot you are the source of all truth and all who disagree with you don't know anything about actual science. I thank you for my chastisement. I will commence with the self flagellation immediately.
- d0mine 4y ago
  An Analysis of the Origins of the Covid-19 Pandemic: Interim Report [pdf] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33360216 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33360216

reuben_scratton 4y ago

You must know that virologists routinely "serial passage" viruses through animal hosts? Evolving a candidate virus "through multiple, probably dozens of hosts" is what virology labs do. And lab leaks happen All The Time. SARS-1 escaped labs on six separate occasions.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Serial passage actually weakens a Virus because this kind of evolution selects for properties that aren't useful for transmission outside the lab. And virulence usually decreases as well. Animal studies of this nature just don't have the numerical power to modify such properties intentionally.

junofan 4y ago

We have one other piece of evidence: Ecohealth Alliance will not share lab notebooks from Wuhan. As a Bayesian horse, you’ll know this “explains away” the natural origin hypothesis. The belief in a natural origin actually goes down.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Bullshit. Absence of information means the uncertainty is not reduced...