5 ms·

Ugh. Nate, why? Nate (and you, dear reader) should know better than this. What a person is willing to say under oath (or in a peer reviewed paper) is what th

by Zetice 3y ago

Ugh. Nate, why? Nate (and you, dear reader) should know better than this. What a person is willing to say under oath (or in a peer reviewed paper) is what they're able to defend. What they say in slack chats or emails is completely different, and not in any way beholden to anything approaching the same level of rigor. It should matter, a lot, that even a group of scientists who believed a lab leak idea was plausible couldn't muster up an argument that would hold up under peer review. If these folks couldn't do it, maybe there's a reason; it's simply not supported by observations/facts.

SiempreViernes 3y ago
I guess some people just think we should have a climategate-type scandal every now and then to clean the sinuses or something?
wredue 3y ago
Besides that, even if Covid did lab leak, that doesn’t lend any credibility what-so-ever to the rest of the lab-leak conspiracists who claim that the vaccine is just a 5g killbot. Personally, I don’t find “china is suppressing information, and there was ventilation changes happening” compelling evidence for a lab leak, but that’s what their evidence is.
- eindiran 3y ago
  > [E]ven if Covid did lab leak, that doesn’t lend any credibility what-so-ever to the rest of the lab-leak conspiracists who claim that the vaccine is just a 5g killbot. No one operating in good faith is conflating these ideas.
  - myko 3y ago
    I took the comment about 5g killbot to really mean human engineered, which there is zero evidence of. Reasonable people since COVID happened considered that a leak is possible, but there is no evidence of it, and that the virus is definitely not human engineered. I would like to see data on how many believe the 5g conspiracies, though. I have a cousin, a former nurse (fired for refusing to vaccinate) who absolutely does believe this and shares her opinion on it constantly. She also thinks the vaccines have killed more people than the covid virus, and has a pretty large social media following / echo chamber of evangelicals around this.
  - wredue 3y ago
    The OP article is not operating in good faith. It’s operating on an anti-science, anti-intellectual agenda. I didn’t declare that people operating in good faith were claiming this. Rather, I explicitly discussed conspiracists, who are notoriously contrarian and demonstrably not operating in reality, let alone “good faith”. The lab-leak hypothesis itself originates from the conspiracy that covid was a virus to get people to inject themselves with a culling weapon. Hence why people who readily accept lab leak also tend to be unvaccinated q bots.
fsh 3y ago
For sure the publications of these FOIA'd taken-out-of-context chats will have a massive chilling effect on scientist chatting freely about their thoughts.
fabian2k 3y ago
The timeline isn't clear to me, but another aspect is that new data became available over time. I'd expect far more speculative comments early in the pandemic compared to later. Another factor that tends to trigger a lot of cynicism and suspicion is the general behaviour of autocratic states like China in such cases. Their behaviour certainly made the investigation harder and removed potential evidence, but we have no idea whether that was because they tried to actually cover up something or just because it's what they always do. They might not even wait until they know anything and just control the information by default and suppress investigations.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bbayles 3y ago
> It should matter, a lot, that even a group of scientists who believed a lab leak idea was plausible couldn't muster up an argument that would hold up under peer review I think Nate would say that the problem is that the paper literally said that such a scenario was "implausible" while the authors believed the opposite. In the "more studies are needed" section, the authors could have explained what questions remained and what data might have resolved them. I suspect Silver would have considered that more honest.
- naasking 3y ago
  > I think Nate would say that the problem is that the paper literally said that such a scenario was "implausible" while the authors believed the opposite. Exactly. What brain block is preventing people from understanding this? The paper made firm, overbroad claims not backed by evidence, and in private communications the authors themselves said they found the conclusions unpersuasive.
  - fsh 3y ago
    Could you list the exact messages (and their timestamps) where the authors are saying this in their private communications? Anything cited in the articles is very unconvincing to me.
    - naasking 3y ago
      This was discussed in the previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36821853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36821853
      - fsh 3y ago
        No, it wasn't. The quote is from a month after the publication. The comment above said: > I think Nate would say that the problem is that the paper literally said that such a scenario was "implausible" while the authors believed the opposite. Please show me the evidence that the authors believe the opposite when they wrote the paper.
slibhb 3y ago
> It should matter, a lot, that even a group of scientists who believed a lab leak idea was plausible couldn't muster up an argument that would hold up under peer review. "We can't say what we actually think because it'll never pass peer review" sounds like an argument against peer review...
- wolverine876 3y ago
  It's an argument against sharing whatever comes out of your a_. People ignore that argument all the time and thus we live in the Post-Truth era. Perception is reality, whatever you think or feel is true, etc. The great innovation of the Enlightenment and science is that such things are not reliable at all. If you want reliable information, you need publicly verifiable facts and peer review.
  - slibhb 3y ago
    If these scientists considered lab leak plausible that raises the question of why. I doubt it was just "feelings". Also, "the Enlightenment was all about peer review" is an odd statement.
beerpls 3y ago
“scientists who believed a lab leak idea was plausible couldn't muster up an argument that would hold up under peer review” Scientists work with covid viruses, scientists accidentally contract virus when one of a thousand technical protocols accidentally slipped, scientists unknowingly spread virus. I worked in a clean lab for years with, presumably, much lower tolerances than you would want at a lab studying deadly viruses. We had leaks all the time even with protocols in place. Scientists are smart, they aren’t perfect and make mistakes. Now realize that publicly stating your lab had a protocol failure of this magnitude and you face career death, the possible eradication of your lab and it’s connections, etc. You’re saying no lab leak claims “held up under peer review” and it’s “not supported by facts”. I’m not sure if you get this, but if this did leak from a lab then there would probably be zero way to trace that without speculation. You’re not going to go find a covid virus with a time stamp and location of where it came from or where it moved. How on Earth would one ever prove this? I have a feeling that your terms of proof a priori make it impossible to ever conclude a lab leak was the cause…
- Zetice 3y ago
  Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on if the lab leak theory is plausible or not, I'm commenting on how none of these folks were willing to go "on the record" about it in a way that would have to stand up to the level of scrutiny they know would come.
  - beerpls 3y ago
    “ Now realize that publicly stating your lab had a protocol failure of this magnitude and you face career death, the possible eradication of your lab and it’s connections, etc.” From my previous comment. It wouldn’t be the least bit surprising that these researchers wouldn’t say it happened even if they had strong evidence it did. The downsides are obviously not good for them nor their careers in any way. God forbid they themselves could be found connected to the responsibility and would inevitably become a scapegoat. And if they did come out and nothing happened to them - what positives would occur? “Reforming safety protocols”? All that would do is create more red tape in the future and inhibit research even more. I think you should better evaluate the context of what a scientist in that position would face and think. You really quickly see there’s a lot of grey area, and we can’t think very highly of our typical standards of proof. Of course, i’m not saying “absolutely it was a leak”. Simply that you’re holding the theory to such high standards of proof as to be, imho, unreasonable.
naasking 3y ago
> It should matter, a lot, that even a group of scientists who believed a lab leak idea was plausible couldn't muster up an argument that would hold up under peer review. That's not what happened.
junofan 3y ago
It’s a letter to the editor. Let’s not spread misinformation by calling it a paper.
kcplate 3y ago
What is strange to me observing all of this debate is that the natural origin theory seems to mostly rely on a Occam’s razor argument that pushes the lab leak theory into a “burden of proof” territory. Ok fine, I’m on board…simple is better and more likely. However, the shear amount of coincidences that seem be piling up and pointing towards lab leak as plausible perhaps even probable do not seem to be balanced with similar coincidental discovery of new evidence on the natural origin side of the debate. The other piece of this that has to be taken under consideration…is two very powerful governments were intertwined in research into this very topic and both after the virus started raging have attempted to obfuscate the origin either by directly suppressing evidence or using political pressure to diffuse the lab leak hypotheses. This is known…and matters. So at what point does the Occam’s razor reasoning shift and the much more simple explanation is that two powerful entities probably are hiding direct evidence of a lab leak because there are 7M people dead? I think it’s reasonable for people like Nate to have a shift in thinking and to start questioning…frankly, everything.

by Zetice 3y ago

SiempreViernes 3y ago

I guess some people just think we should have a climategate-type scandal every now and then to clean the sinuses or something?

wredue 3y ago

Besides that, even if Covid did lab leak, that doesn’t lend any credibility what-so-ever to the rest of the lab-leak conspiracists who claim that the vaccine is just a 5g killbot. Personally, I don’t find “china is suppressing information, and there was ventilation changes happening” compelling evidence for a lab leak, but that’s what their evidence is.

eindiran 3y ago
> [E]ven if Covid did lab leak, that doesn’t lend any credibility what-so-ever to the rest of the lab-leak conspiracists who claim that the vaccine is just a 5g killbot. No one operating in good faith is conflating these ideas.
- myko 3y ago
  I took the comment about 5g killbot to really mean human engineered, which there is zero evidence of. Reasonable people since COVID happened considered that a leak is possible, but there is no evidence of it, and that the virus is definitely not human engineered. I would like to see data on how many believe the 5g conspiracies, though. I have a cousin, a former nurse (fired for refusing to vaccinate) who absolutely does believe this and shares her opinion on it constantly. She also thinks the vaccines have killed more people than the covid virus, and has a pretty large social media following / echo chamber of evangelicals around this.
- wredue 3y ago
  The OP article is not operating in good faith. It’s operating on an anti-science, anti-intellectual agenda. I didn’t declare that people operating in good faith were claiming this. Rather, I explicitly discussed conspiracists, who are notoriously contrarian and demonstrably not operating in reality, let alone “good faith”. The lab-leak hypothesis itself originates from the conspiracy that covid was a virus to get people to inject themselves with a culling weapon. Hence why people who readily accept lab leak also tend to be unvaccinated q bots.

fsh 3y ago

For sure the publications of these FOIA'd taken-out-of-context chats will have a massive chilling effect on scientist chatting freely about their thoughts.

fabian2k 3y ago

The timeline isn't clear to me, but another aspect is that new data became available over time. I'd expect far more speculative comments early in the pandemic compared to later. Another factor that tends to trigger a lot of cynicism and suspicion is the general behaviour of autocratic states like China in such cases. Their behaviour certainly made the investigation harder and removed potential evidence, but we have no idea whether that was because they tried to actually cover up something or just because it's what they always do. They might not even wait until they know anything and just control the information by default and suppress investigations.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bbayles 3y ago

> It should matter, a lot, that even a group of scientists who believed a lab leak idea was plausible couldn't muster up an argument that would hold up under peer review I think Nate would say that the problem is that the paper literally said that such a scenario was "implausible" while the authors believed the opposite. In the "more studies are needed" section, the authors could have explained what questions remained and what data might have resolved them. I suspect Silver would have considered that more honest.

naasking 3y ago
> I think Nate would say that the problem is that the paper literally said that such a scenario was "implausible" while the authors believed the opposite. Exactly. What brain block is preventing people from understanding this? The paper made firm, overbroad claims not backed by evidence, and in private communications the authors themselves said they found the conclusions unpersuasive.
- fsh 3y ago
  Could you list the exact messages (and their timestamps) where the authors are saying this in their private communications? Anything cited in the articles is very unconvincing to me.
  - naasking 3y ago
    This was discussed in the previous thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36821853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36821853
    - fsh 3y ago
      No, it wasn't. The quote is from a month after the publication. The comment above said: > I think Nate would say that the problem is that the paper literally said that such a scenario was "implausible" while the authors believed the opposite. Please show me the evidence that the authors believe the opposite when they wrote the paper.

slibhb 3y ago

> It should matter, a lot, that even a group of scientists who believed a lab leak idea was plausible couldn't muster up an argument that would hold up under peer review. "We can't say what we actually think because it'll never pass peer review" sounds like an argument against peer review...

wolverine876 3y ago
It's an argument against sharing whatever comes out of your a_. People ignore that argument all the time and thus we live in the Post-Truth era. Perception is reality, whatever you think or feel is true, etc. The great innovation of the Enlightenment and science is that such things are not reliable at all. If you want reliable information, you need publicly verifiable facts and peer review.
- slibhb 3y ago
  If these scientists considered lab leak plausible that raises the question of why. I doubt it was just "feelings". Also, "the Enlightenment was all about peer review" is an odd statement.

beerpls 3y ago

“scientists who believed a lab leak idea was plausible couldn't muster up an argument that would hold up under peer review” Scientists work with covid viruses, scientists accidentally contract virus when one of a thousand technical protocols accidentally slipped, scientists unknowingly spread virus. I worked in a clean lab for years with, presumably, much lower tolerances than you would want at a lab studying deadly viruses. We had leaks all the time even with protocols in place. Scientists are smart, they aren’t perfect and make mistakes. Now realize that publicly stating your lab had a protocol failure of this magnitude and you face career death, the possible eradication of your lab and it’s connections, etc. You’re saying no lab leak claims “held up under peer review” and it’s “not supported by facts”. I’m not sure if you get this, but if this did leak from a lab then there would probably be zero way to trace that without speculation. You’re not going to go find a covid virus with a time stamp and location of where it came from or where it moved. How on Earth would one ever prove this? I have a feeling that your terms of proof a priori make it impossible to ever conclude a lab leak was the cause…

Zetice 3y ago
Just to be clear, I'm not commenting on if the lab leak theory is plausible or not, I'm commenting on how none of these folks were willing to go "on the record" about it in a way that would have to stand up to the level of scrutiny they know would come.
- beerpls 3y ago
  “ Now realize that publicly stating your lab had a protocol failure of this magnitude and you face career death, the possible eradication of your lab and it’s connections, etc.” From my previous comment. It wouldn’t be the least bit surprising that these researchers wouldn’t say it happened even if they had strong evidence it did. The downsides are obviously not good for them nor their careers in any way. God forbid they themselves could be found connected to the responsibility and would inevitably become a scapegoat. And if they did come out and nothing happened to them - what positives would occur? “Reforming safety protocols”? All that would do is create more red tape in the future and inhibit research even more. I think you should better evaluate the context of what a scientist in that position would face and think. You really quickly see there’s a lot of grey area, and we can’t think very highly of our typical standards of proof. Of course, i’m not saying “absolutely it was a leak”. Simply that you’re holding the theory to such high standards of proof as to be, imho, unreasonable.

naasking 3y ago

> It should matter, a lot, that even a group of scientists who believed a lab leak idea was plausible couldn't muster up an argument that would hold up under peer review. That's not what happened.

junofan 3y ago

It’s a letter to the editor. Let’s not spread misinformation by calling it a paper.

kcplate 3y ago

What is strange to me observing all of this debate is that the natural origin theory seems to mostly rely on a Occam’s razor argument that pushes the lab leak theory into a “burden of proof” territory. Ok fine, I’m on board…simple is better and more likely. However, the shear amount of coincidences that seem be piling up and pointing towards lab leak as plausible perhaps even probable do not seem to be balanced with similar coincidental discovery of new evidence on the natural origin side of the debate. The other piece of this that has to be taken under consideration…is two very powerful governments were intertwined in research into this very topic and both after the virus started raging have attempted to obfuscate the origin either by directly suppressing evidence or using political pressure to diffuse the lab leak hypotheses. This is known…and matters. So at what point does the Occam’s razor reasoning shift and the much more simple explanation is that two powerful entities probably are hiding direct evidence of a lab leak because there are 7M people dead? I think it’s reasonable for people like Nate to have a shift in thinking and to start questioning…frankly, everything.