6 ms·

Manufacturing certainty on the origin of Covid-19 is damaging to science

21 points by baja_blast 4y ago

mianos 4y ago
For what seems to be a scientific source, evidence cited includes: "Polls show that most of the American public, regardless of their political leanings, believes the virus came from a laboratory, and, in 25 of 26 countries surveyed, more people think the virus came from a lab rather than nature." The very presence of such a quote confirms to me this is "opinion" not science.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  That's your take away? I think the point is that all the people in the world and all the various information they have received leads them to believe that a laboratory studying this very virus was responsible for its release. You chose to side with those that would blind themselves to any information that doesn't conform to a narrative
  - mianos 4y ago
    Not at all. The article is saying, with a 'shortfall' of evidence, he thinks we should consider both possible sources, man made and from the wild. That is perfectly reasonable to me. We don't have enough information and it's pretty bad a lot of professional public spokespeople are saying we are sure. That's the narrative. But, why does public opinion even factor in this argument? Like many people here I have closely followed a lot of the information published. I certainly feel I am much more informed about this than my friends. But, my opinion on the source does not count for shit if professional scientists say they don't know. This guy is a professional.
    - netsharc 4y ago
      The author is presumably a lady (her name is Alina) and the top of the article also says "Opinion". But my comment also questions why she thinks it matters what the public believes.
- baja_blast 4y ago
  I think the fact that with SARS2 unlike the original SARS and MERS which were circulating in animal populations only spilled over once in a single location counts as proof. You see when a wild virus that has been circulating within an intermediate host species, you get multiple independent outbreaks over a large geographic area with different mutations, additionally each of these outbreaks leave a trail of mutations as the virus adapts to humans. These mutations have been used to track down and find the intermediate host within months for both SARS -> civets and MERS -> Camels. They also had multiple outbreaks across many regions that were genetically distinct(but related). BUT! With SARS2 we seem to be missing the following: - Rapid mutations in the starting months of the outbreak(SARS2 displayed very little if any major mutations in the starting months as it was already pre-adapted towards humans). - Multiple spillovers over time each with a different variant of the animal virus, something that happened with SARS, MERS, Nipah virus, Ebola which had multiple spillovers all independent from each other. - Identification of intermediate host species. For SARS they found the virus that infected patient zero within months, MERS found the virus in camels. For SARS2 nothing! And this is after 3+ years of looking. And while it's true China won't allow scientists to look in China, the habitat of the Horseshoe bat overlaps with Laos and other South East asian countries and if it was present in civets you'd think they would find a civet with an ancestor of the early strains of the virus in Laos. So even throwing out circumstantial evidence like deleting databases in September of 2019, the way SARS2 outbreak occurred does not fit evolutionary theory.
netsharc 4y ago
I mostly agree, but how is this part of the piece relevant? Why should it matter what most of the public, American or whatever, believe? > Polls show that most of the American public, regardless of their political leanings, believes the virus came from a laboratory, and, in 25 of 26 countries surveyed, more people think the virus came from a lab rather than nature. To me the "it's natural, okay!" scientists aren't behaving like scientists, more like the "The world is flat, ok!" theologians in the time of Galileo. The side that are also so certain that "The Chinese made it!" are also unscientific, in my opinion. We just don't know yet and there's not much investigating we can do.
- troon-lover 4y ago
  [dead]
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  > We just don't know yet and there's not much investigating we can do. Because a certain country made sure to destroy evidences from the suspected lab?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 4y ago
  It's relevant for two reasons. First, lay people presented with competing expert arguments are generally reliable. Not universally, of course, but often enough that it's probative. It is useful to get a "gut check" from someone who isn't close to an issue, the comparative increase in objectivity outweighs the comparative loss in expertise. Second, regardless of the abstract question of any particular hypothesis, the credibility of the scientific field in the eyes of the citizenry is important. Even if a scientist knew with certainty that the lab leak hypothesis were false, wasting credibility on that position without compelling evidence would be "damaging to science," in the sense that it decreases the influence of experts and, likely, their funding. TL;DR: It's important because, when choosing a hill to die on, you have to account for the strength of your evidence and whether people are inclined to believe you. The opinion polls are relevant to the latter question.
knaik94 4y ago
The more damaging thing to science, in my opinion was the stigma that became assocaited with questioning experts. In some situations, public official made using deductive reasoning politicized. The entire point of science is making a hypothesis and testing it. The value of science comes from being allowed to be wrong without judgement. Showing something is wrong is what allows research to then move towards the "right" direction. But politicizing which "wrong" theory should be entertained makes it harder to properly and thorougly research credible possiblities. It feels like public health officals made a call about the origins of the virus based on political reasons, while presenting it as scientific. Even if they did not directly share that sentiment, there was very little pushback to correct that misunderstanding. It's very similar to the initial calls for masks to NOT be used by the public. It was later clarified that this guideline was an attempt to avoid medical supply shortages by hospitals, but it was presented as scientifically founded and based on an understanding of the virus. The public policy was based on supply chain considerations, and yet "World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have both said that only people with COVID-19 symptoms and those caring for them should wear masks". "Seriously people-STOP BUYING MASKS!" began a 29 February tweet from U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams." [1] Like most people, I assumed the recommendation came from some biology I didn't understand. I imagine the officials that made this guidelines regret it. I can't say they did the best they could, because they intentionally directly opposed China's guidelies at the time. Quoting China's CDC head Dr. George Gao, "The big mistake in the U.S. and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren't wearing masks. This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role—you've got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth. Many people have asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections. If they are wearing face masks, it can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others." (27 MAR 2020) [2] I think it's important to recognize that the anti-science sentiment existed long before covid-19 and has only incrased. A major problem is that public officials allow science to be politicized. These mistake during covid-19 directly lead to amplifying the anti-mask and anti-vaccine sentiment. People that entertained the lab leak hypothesis were intially put into the same group as the anti-mask and anti-vaccine crowd. Those initial impressiosn are very hard to erase. Public sentiment on who is trustworthy is unpredictable. People will always come to conclusions based on incomplete information. There needs to be stronger push by public health officials to share uncomfortable truths with the public earlier and demonstrate that science is above politics. 1. https://www.science.org/content/article/would-everyone-wearing-face-masks-help-us-slow-pandemic https://www.science.org/content/article/would-everyone-weari... (28 MAR 2020) 2. https://www.science.org/content/article/not-wearing-masks-protect-against-coronavirus-big-mistake-top-chinese-scientist-says https://www.science.org/content/article/not-wearing-masks-pr...

21 points by baja_blast 4y ago

For what seems to be a scientific source, evidence cited includes: "Polls show that most of the American public, regardless of their political leanings, believes the virus came from a laboratory, and, in 25 of 26 countries surveyed, more people think the virus came from a lab rather than nature." The very presence of such a quote confirms to me this is "opinion" not science.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
That's your take away? I think the point is that all the people in the world and all the various information they have received leads them to believe that a laboratory studying this very virus was responsible for its release. You chose to side with those that would blind themselves to any information that doesn't conform to a narrative
- mianos 4y ago
  Not at all. The article is saying, with a 'shortfall' of evidence, he thinks we should consider both possible sources, man made and from the wild. That is perfectly reasonable to me. We don't have enough information and it's pretty bad a lot of professional public spokespeople are saying we are sure. That's the narrative. But, why does public opinion even factor in this argument? Like many people here I have closely followed a lot of the information published. I certainly feel I am much more informed about this than my friends. But, my opinion on the source does not count for shit if professional scientists say they don't know. This guy is a professional.
  - netsharc 4y ago
    The author is presumably a lady (her name is Alina) and the top of the article also says "Opinion". But my comment also questions why she thinks it matters what the public believes.
baja_blast 4y ago
I think the fact that with SARS2 unlike the original SARS and MERS which were circulating in animal populations only spilled over once in a single location counts as proof. You see when a wild virus that has been circulating within an intermediate host species, you get multiple independent outbreaks over a large geographic area with different mutations, additionally each of these outbreaks leave a trail of mutations as the virus adapts to humans. These mutations have been used to track down and find the intermediate host within months for both SARS -> civets and MERS -> Camels. They also had multiple outbreaks across many regions that were genetically distinct(but related). BUT! With SARS2 we seem to be missing the following: - Rapid mutations in the starting months of the outbreak(SARS2 displayed very little if any major mutations in the starting months as it was already pre-adapted towards humans). - Multiple spillovers over time each with a different variant of the animal virus, something that happened with SARS, MERS, Nipah virus, Ebola which had multiple spillovers all independent from each other. - Identification of intermediate host species. For SARS they found the virus that infected patient zero within months, MERS found the virus in camels. For SARS2 nothing! And this is after 3+ years of looking. And while it's true China won't allow scientists to look in China, the habitat of the Horseshoe bat overlaps with Laos and other South East asian countries and if it was present in civets you'd think they would find a civet with an ancestor of the early strains of the virus in Laos. So even throwing out circumstantial evidence like deleting databases in September of 2019, the way SARS2 outbreak occurred does not fit evolutionary theory.

netsharc 4y ago

I mostly agree, but how is this part of the piece relevant? Why should it matter what most of the public, American or whatever, believe? > Polls show that most of the American public, regardless of their political leanings, believes the virus came from a laboratory, and, in 25 of 26 countries surveyed, more people think the virus came from a lab rather than nature. To me the "it's natural, okay!" scientists aren't behaving like scientists, more like the "The world is flat, ok!" theologians in the time of Galileo. The side that are also so certain that "The Chinese made it!" are also unscientific, in my opinion. We just don't know yet and there's not much investigating we can do.

troon-lover 4y ago
[dead]
908B64B197 4y ago
> We just don't know yet and there's not much investigating we can do. Because a certain country made sure to destroy evidences from the suspected lab?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 4y ago
It's relevant for two reasons. First, lay people presented with competing expert arguments are generally reliable. Not universally, of course, but often enough that it's probative. It is useful to get a "gut check" from someone who isn't close to an issue, the comparative increase in objectivity outweighs the comparative loss in expertise. Second, regardless of the abstract question of any particular hypothesis, the credibility of the scientific field in the eyes of the citizenry is important. Even if a scientist knew with certainty that the lab leak hypothesis were false, wasting credibility on that position without compelling evidence would be "damaging to science," in the sense that it decreases the influence of experts and, likely, their funding. TL;DR: It's important because, when choosing a hill to die on, you have to account for the strength of your evidence and whether people are inclined to believe you. The opinion polls are relevant to the latter question.

knaik94 4y ago

The more damaging thing to science, in my opinion was the stigma that became assocaited with questioning experts. In some situations, public official made using deductive reasoning politicized. The entire point of science is making a hypothesis and testing it. The value of science comes from being allowed to be wrong without judgement. Showing something is wrong is what allows research to then move towards the "right" direction. But politicizing which "wrong" theory should be entertained makes it harder to properly and thorougly research credible possiblities. It feels like public health officals made a call about the origins of the virus based on political reasons, while presenting it as scientific. Even if they did not directly share that sentiment, there was very little pushback to correct that misunderstanding. It's very similar to the initial calls for masks to NOT be used by the public. It was later clarified that this guideline was an attempt to avoid medical supply shortages by hospitals, but it was presented as scientifically founded and based on an understanding of the virus. The public policy was based on supply chain considerations, and yet "World Health Organization and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have both said that only people with COVID-19 symptoms and those caring for them should wear masks". "Seriously people-STOP BUYING MASKS!" began a 29 February tweet from U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams." [1] Like most people, I assumed the recommendation came from some biology I didn't understand. I imagine the officials that made this guidelines regret it. I can't say they did the best they could, because they intentionally directly opposed China's guidelies at the time. Quoting China's CDC head Dr. George Gao, "The big mistake in the U.S. and Europe, in my opinion, is that people aren't wearing masks. This virus is transmitted by droplets and close contact. Droplets play a very important role—you've got to wear a mask, because when you speak, there are always droplets coming out of your mouth. Many people have asymptomatic or presymptomatic infections. If they are wearing face masks, it can prevent droplets that carry the virus from escaping and infecting others." (27 MAR 2020) [2] I think it's important to recognize that the anti-science sentiment existed long before covid-19 and has only incrased. A major problem is that public officials allow science to be politicized. These mistake during covid-19 directly lead to amplifying the anti-mask and anti-vaccine sentiment. People that entertained the lab leak hypothesis were intially put into the same group as the anti-mask and anti-vaccine crowd. Those initial impressiosn are very hard to erase. Public sentiment on who is trustworthy is unpredictable. People will always come to conclusions based on incomplete information. There needs to be stronger push by public health officials to share uncomfortable truths with the public earlier and demonstrate that science is above politics. 1. https://www.science.org/content/article/would-everyone-wearing-face-masks-help-us-slow-pandemic https://www.science.org/content/article/would-everyone-weari... (28 MAR 2020) 2. https://www.science.org/content/article/not-wearing-masks-protect-against-coronavirus-big-mistake-top-chinese-scientist-says https://www.science.org/content/article/not-wearing-masks-pr...