3 ms·

No we do not have the sequences, the lab has so far refused to share the sequences in their public database taken down down September of 2019. Plus recently peo

No we do not have the sequences, the lab has so far refused to share the sequences in their public database taken down down September of 2019. Plus recently people have discovered through BLAST searches an unreported Chimera virus that got accidentally got sequenced via contaminated agricultural rice sequencing dataset. Which means they had viruses that have not been previously reported. And this makes sense researchers do not publish viruses until they themselves can publish them in a journal. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.02.12.528210v2.full.pdf https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.02.12.528210v2....

mikeyouse 4y ago
It was available well into 2020 if you read past the shitty early headlines.
- tripletao 4y ago
  I guess you're referring here to Flo Débarre's misleading tweet, which you linked to four months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33247997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33247997 As I noted in my reply at that time, everyone has always agreed that the overall server remained intermittently accessible until Feb 2020. The particular database "was not accessed from outside of the WIV after 12 September 2019", though.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    Right, a database put online in June 2019 - widely claimed to be “suspiciously removed” in Sept 2019, actually wasn’t. It was available into 2020 at which point after a bunch of hacking attempts, they took it down. And certainly “everyone hasn’t agreed” because in every thread about the topic people imply like this 6 Month old database is a smoking gun when it’s self evidently not.
    - tripletao 4y ago
      I don't think the server is conclusive evidence of anything, but your representation seems misleading to me. The date when the information became publicly unavailable seems like the relevant one to me, even if the server remained connected to the Internet for a few months afterward. And you seriously believe their claim that it was taken down due to "hacking attempts"? Given the international importance of the subject, is there really no one anywhere in China who can keep a simple database-backed website running? Or could they not share the information in a form that obviously presents no information security risk, like a dump on a flash drive?

mikeyouse 4y ago

It was available well into 2020 if you read past the shitty early headlines.

tripletao 4y ago
I guess you're referring here to Flo Débarre's misleading tweet, which you linked to four months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33247997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33247997 As I noted in my reply at that time, everyone has always agreed that the overall server remained intermittently accessible until Feb 2020. The particular database "was not accessed from outside of the WIV after 12 September 2019", though.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Right, a database put online in June 2019 - widely claimed to be “suspiciously removed” in Sept 2019, actually wasn’t. It was available into 2020 at which point after a bunch of hacking attempts, they took it down. And certainly “everyone hasn’t agreed” because in every thread about the topic people imply like this 6 Month old database is a smoking gun when it’s self evidently not.
  - tripletao 4y ago
    I don't think the server is conclusive evidence of anything, but your representation seems misleading to me. The date when the information became publicly unavailable seems like the relevant one to me, even if the server remained connected to the Internet for a few months afterward. And you seriously believe their claim that it was taken down due to "hacking attempts"? Given the international importance of the subject, is there really no one anywhere in China who can keep a simple database-backed website running? Or could they not share the information in a form that obviously presents no information security risk, like a dump on a flash drive?