4 ms·

How and why would they have that kind of data available if the virus only existed in the lab? At most they could have had computer simulations, but no real data

How and why would they have that kind of data available if the virus only existed in the lab? At most they could have had computer simulations, but no real data. The only information they would have had is the DNA sequence, but that was rapidly sequenced anyway, and design of the original vaccines followed in short order. What took time was testing and manufacturing the vaccines, but none of this would have been accelerated even if the lab theory were true and if they had any data on the details of the virus. This whole discussion is ultimately useless, and the people pushing for it were never interested in finding solution, but only in finding someone to blame, which has no impact on the outcome.

ozr 3y ago
> How and why would they have that kind of data available if the virus only existed in the lab? At most they could have had computer simulations, but no real data. I'm not a virologist, but this doesn't make sense to me. If we work under the assumption that this was a lab-made virus that leaked, then they plainly must have actually created it. What's the point of having a real virus if you aren't using it to generate real data? Even in the unlikely scenario where they made it, stuck it on a shelf, and did nothing: they could share information about how it was created, which would give insight into it's potential current and future behavior. > The only information they would have had is the DNA sequence, but that was rapidly sequenced anyway, and design of the original vaccines followed in short order. This isn't true. They would have information on how it was created, any work that they had done to devise a vaccine for it, and any other data they had accumulated on it. > This whole discussion is ultimately useless, and the people pushing for it were never interested in finding solution, but only in finding someone to blame, which has no impact on the outcome. It's not useless at all. If it turns out to be true, there are plenty of meaningful ramifications: 1. In the pursuit of stopping fake news and propaganda, real information from whistleblowers and researchers was suppressed and careers were ended. It would be a useful lesson in free speech and the open exchange of ideas. 2. It shows there are clearly deficiencies in these labs. Inspections could be more frequent, standards could be raised, all sorts of changes could be made to prevent it from happening again. 3. And, yes, if there is someone or some entity worthy of blame, they should be blamed. Why should their fault be hand-waved?
- avisser 3y ago
  > What's the point of having a real virus if you aren't using it to generate real data? I think you're conflating the data existing vs the data being public. My wife has a PhD in psychology. She did research at a state school using US gov't grants. The only "data" available is the papers they wrote and presented. I don't expect a virology lab to be any less protective - in fact I expect them to be more.
- lmm 3y ago
  > If we work under the assumption that this was a lab-made virus that leaked, then they plainly must have actually created it. What's the point of having a real virus if you aren't using it to generate real data? Assuming experiments had been completed by then they'd have, what, some figures for how infectious it was in humanized mice. Maybe months down the line they'd've written a paper showing that this splice made it 40% +/-25% more infectious than the strain it was derived from or whatever. So yes, there would be data, but it's hard to imagine it would be a meaningful data compared to what was already being measured with a) humans rather than mice, and more importantly b) orders of magnitude larger sample sizes. > This isn't true. They would have information on how it was created, The how would be that they ran up that DNA sequence and inserted it into a blank virus. There's nothing that knowing "how it was created" tells you that you don't already know from the DNA sequence. > any work that they had done to devise a vaccine for it They weren't working on that.
  - ozr 3y ago
    Re: most of this: an actual virologist has responded and explained the data that would have typically been collected and how it would have helped. To the last point though: > They weren't working on that. Says who? If they lied about accidentally releasing it, why wouldn’t they lie about what they were doing with it in the first place?
    - lmm 3y ago
      > Re: most of this: an actual virologist has responded and explained the data that would have typically been collected and how it would have helped. I think they're looking at the best case scenario. Yes, if people were studying the virus then they were hoping to learn something about its effects on humans. But whatever experiments they were performing were presumably in-progress rather than complete, and the odds that they were working on antibodies or the like are pretty narrow. > Says who? If they lied about accidentally releasing it, why wouldn’t they lie about what they were doing with it in the first place? What they were working on was public record dating back to years before there was any reason to hide anything. And it makes very little sense to work on a vaccine for a virus that doesn't exist in the wild.
somebody78978 3y ago
I don't understand, the whole point of studying a virus in a lab is to gather data on it.
- Izkata 3y ago
  Think about how the data would be gathered: Most of what was listed requires infecting a large number of people.
jankyxenon 3y ago
Knowing when it was global issue #1 would have been a catalyst for much strong go-forward mitigation. It’s very important to know how this happened, especially if it wasn’t an accident.

ozr 3y ago

> How and why would they have that kind of data available if the virus only existed in the lab? At most they could have had computer simulations, but no real data. I'm not a virologist, but this doesn't make sense to me. If we work under the assumption that this was a lab-made virus that leaked, then they plainly must have actually created it. What's the point of having a real virus if you aren't using it to generate real data? Even in the unlikely scenario where they made it, stuck it on a shelf, and did nothing: they could share information about how it was created, which would give insight into it's potential current and future behavior. > The only information they would have had is the DNA sequence, but that was rapidly sequenced anyway, and design of the original vaccines followed in short order. This isn't true. They would have information on how it was created, any work that they had done to devise a vaccine for it, and any other data they had accumulated on it. > This whole discussion is ultimately useless, and the people pushing for it were never interested in finding solution, but only in finding someone to blame, which has no impact on the outcome. It's not useless at all. If it turns out to be true, there are plenty of meaningful ramifications: 1. In the pursuit of stopping fake news and propaganda, real information from whistleblowers and researchers was suppressed and careers were ended. It would be a useful lesson in free speech and the open exchange of ideas. 2. It shows there are clearly deficiencies in these labs. Inspections could be more frequent, standards could be raised, all sorts of changes could be made to prevent it from happening again. 3. And, yes, if there is someone or some entity worthy of blame, they should be blamed. Why should their fault be hand-waved?

avisser 3y ago
> What's the point of having a real virus if you aren't using it to generate real data? I think you're conflating the data existing vs the data being public. My wife has a PhD in psychology. She did research at a state school using US gov't grants. The only "data" available is the papers they wrote and presented. I don't expect a virology lab to be any less protective - in fact I expect them to be more.
lmm 3y ago
> If we work under the assumption that this was a lab-made virus that leaked, then they plainly must have actually created it. What's the point of having a real virus if you aren't using it to generate real data? Assuming experiments had been completed by then they'd have, what, some figures for how infectious it was in humanized mice. Maybe months down the line they'd've written a paper showing that this splice made it 40% +/-25% more infectious than the strain it was derived from or whatever. So yes, there would be data, but it's hard to imagine it would be a meaningful data compared to what was already being measured with a) humans rather than mice, and more importantly b) orders of magnitude larger sample sizes. > This isn't true. They would have information on how it was created, The how would be that they ran up that DNA sequence and inserted it into a blank virus. There's nothing that knowing "how it was created" tells you that you don't already know from the DNA sequence. > any work that they had done to devise a vaccine for it They weren't working on that.
- ozr 3y ago
  Re: most of this: an actual virologist has responded and explained the data that would have typically been collected and how it would have helped. To the last point though: > They weren't working on that. Says who? If they lied about accidentally releasing it, why wouldn’t they lie about what they were doing with it in the first place?
  - lmm 3y ago
    > Re: most of this: an actual virologist has responded and explained the data that would have typically been collected and how it would have helped. I think they're looking at the best case scenario. Yes, if people were studying the virus then they were hoping to learn something about its effects on humans. But whatever experiments they were performing were presumably in-progress rather than complete, and the odds that they were working on antibodies or the like are pretty narrow. > Says who? If they lied about accidentally releasing it, why wouldn’t they lie about what they were doing with it in the first place? What they were working on was public record dating back to years before there was any reason to hide anything. And it makes very little sense to work on a vaccine for a virus that doesn't exist in the wild.

somebody78978 3y ago

I don't understand, the whole point of studying a virus in a lab is to gather data on it.

Izkata 3y ago
Think about how the data would be gathered: Most of what was listed requires infecting a large number of people.

jankyxenon 3y ago

Knowing when it was global issue #1 would have been a catalyst for much strong go-forward mitigation. It’s very important to know how this happened, especially if it wasn’t an accident.