4 ms·

I get that there are a lot of arm-chair experts who think this was a lab-leak. But we're making many large jumps here from: Was this created in a lab? Was this

by xracy 3y ago

I get that there are a lot of arm-chair experts who think this was a lab-leak. But we're making many large jumps here from: Was this created in a lab? Was this leaked from a lab? Is there something inherently dangerous about studying viruses in labs? Full NIMBY. The positive externalities of this are good jobs around virology study to try and prevent the next pandemic. But we're just leaning super hard into fear-mongering here. How many people in the comments of this article really describe the processes used at each of these labs to prevent the viruses from getting out? How many can say how effective those practices are? We've still not proven that COVID was a lab-leak, so we're attempting to say that something that otherwise has a very safe record is dangerous based on what might have happened.

tmaly 3y ago
I have not kept up with this topic. What does the evidence point to? Has any new evidence surfaced in the past year?
- xracy 3y ago
  I have certainly not heard of any new evidence that would change my view that it was not caused by a lab-leak yet. My impression is that the market animal to human jump was still the prevailing theory.
- toomim 3y ago
  There has been little or no new physical evidence. We have seen new evidence of coverup, though, where scientists privately said there was high likelihood of lab leak in slack messages before publicly signing publications claiming there was no likelihood of lab leak. The leaked slack messages are damning.
  - wredue 3y ago
    That’s a complete mischaracterization of that situation. The conversation DID ask if it was a leak. Then they studied the evidence and only after studying the evidence did they publicly sign that it was probably of natural origin.
    - toomim 3y ago
      That's not true at all. They had already studied the evidence on February 2 when they had the slack conversations. No new evidence appeared. Then they said out loud that they were changing the paper's conclusions away from their actual beliefs because of the political consequences: > “Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possible distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to with ascribing it to natural processes.” > “Yup, I totally agree that’s a very reasonable conclusion,” Andersen responded. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance. We should be sensitive to that.” https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-leak/ https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-lea...
- tootie 3y ago
  There's really none. The biggest evidence is the fact that an animal reservoir was never found and it was found relatively quickly during the first SARS and MERS outbreaks. There's no evidence from the lab itself and no evidence the virus that reached the public was subject to GoF. And just general distrust of China.
- someuser2345 3y ago
  I don't think we'll ever find out. There's no incentive for the Chinese government to investigate this issue, and plenty of incentives to keep it hidden.
anon291 3y ago
Your argument here boils down to 'we shouldn't care if it's created in a lab, because even if it were, the benefits of studying viruses outweigh the risk'. It's funny that you accuse others of being 'armchair experts', when you yourself are being an armchair expert on the topic of the risk/benefit analysis of gain-of-function research. Moreover, your idea is even more dangerous because it necessitates that there will never be any expertise in this area. If no one investigates whether this was a lab leak, we'll never be able to put together proper research and data to answer the question of whether the benefits outweigh the risks of gain-of-function research. The main purpose behind determining if it's a lab leak is not to 'make jumps'. It's so that we know. It's important we know because it's how science and policy get done. Putting our fingers in our ears and covering our eyes and pretending it doesn't matter is irresponsible. > We've still not proven that COVID was a lab-leak, so we're attempting to say that something that otherwise has a very safe record is dangerous based on what might have happened. How is anyone supposed to prove or even provide evidence of such a thing if China doesn't cooperate? And that's really the reason this has exploded. China is not cooperating. No one knows, and that's suspicious. Even if, as you say, all indicators point to gain-of-function research being useful, I think we should all be able to agree that labs that are not open to being investigated by international, neutral bodies should not be involved in conducting them. The possibility of cover ups is too great.
- xracy 3y ago
  You're misrepresenting my argument at the top. My argument here is "We don't know that this was created in a lab, and it's unreasonable to assume it was when we have evidence that it wasn't created in a lab." It's even more unreasonable to create policy based on this wild speculation. > How is anyone supposed to prove or even provide evidence of such a thing if China doesn't cooperate? And that's really the reason this has exploded. China is not cooperating. No one knows, and that's suspicious. Difficulty in obtaining evidence doesn't change the burden of proof from "proving a positive" to "disproving a negative". "Suspicious" is not "damning evidence." But also my understanding is that scientists have studied the virus and determined it doesn't have any of the hallmarks they would expect from a human-altered virus.
  - 3y ago
jrm4 3y ago
Yeah, nah. You're conflating certainty with risk. Crazy virus comes from where said crazy viruses are literally made and studied. Occams Razor suggests a lot, but more importantly, smart risk management dictates that you treat the lab as if it is the source; absent some sort of clear risk-related reason that these experiments are likely to do more good than harm. So I suppose the correct question is -- what are we getting from these labs that's worth the risk of leaks?
- xracy 3y ago
  There's literally an alternative proposed leak method that is the current consensus (market) that is more believable than the lab-leak theory.
  - jrm4 3y ago
    This is the wet market theory, yes? I presume these wet markets exist in places other than Wuhan. Yeah, nah, that one is only "more believable" propped up by e.g. xenophobia and racism. Falls way too neatly into "look at the weird Chinese people they eat bats" or whatever. Pretty flimsy compared to "lab that literally does this kind of virus all day."
    - someuser2345 3y ago
      It's also a more convenient theory for the Chinese government. Its much less embarrassing to say "The virus came from rednecks eating weird things" than it is to say "The virus came from a government funded lab".
- cbsmith 3y ago
  > Crazy virus comes from where said crazy viruses are literally made and studied. "Crazy" is an odd characterization, but let's go with it. Where are "crazy viruses literally made"? Well, more often than not, in nature. So...
WatchDog 3y ago
> We've still not proven that COVID was a lab-leak We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. > so we're attempting to say that something that otherwise has a very safe record is dangerous based on what might have happened. I'm not sure how good the record really is[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
- xracy 3y ago
  > We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P... Your second point is better taken.
  - earthboundkid 3y ago
    I think if there's even a 49% chance that a certain kind of research caused the pandemic, it should be banned, because that's too high. Hell, even a 1% chance of another pandemic is too high, but I don't think any honest evaluator can put the odds of it having been a lab leak that low. It's not 100%, but I think anyone being honest with themselves about the evidence has to put it over at least 20%, and I think as high as 80%.
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    Burden of proof is a tragically misapplied concept. The question is what position should be the default given some uncertainty? This isn't decided in a vacuum. The default should be decided based on the facts and utility estimates of various outcomes where relevant. In the case where the issue is of purely academic interest, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. When the issue has real world consequences, then utility estimates of various outcomes are relevant. Who has the burden to demonstrate that GoF research is safe given our uncertainty of whether COVID was lab created and subsequently leaked? This issue isn't of purely academic interest. We must consider the costs to society of a leak vs the benefits of that research. From where I'm sitting, the benefits are non-existent relative to the costs. Given the massive negative utility of a leak compared to benefits of the research, the burden of proof is on those who want to continue doing GoF research to demonstrate safety and value.
arcticbull 3y ago
I'm not generally opposed to virology research - I do think that it's totally reasonable a lab leak could have lead to this. Coronaviruses (SARS specifically) have leaked from Chinese labs twice in the last 20 years. These aren't really even controversial incidents, the PRC admitted it. [2] Lab leaks of pathogens aren't really that uncommon, to the extent Wikipedia has a huge list including labs from all over the world. [1] tl;dr: viruses escape from labs, so it was never a far-fetched scenario. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/
coupdejarnac 3y ago
Chinese social media was spreading rumours about the virus being created and spread by the US army even before wuhan was locked down. Your opinion has been shaped by a massive disinformation campaign.
dist-epoch 3y ago
How exactly did the world-leading research institute in coronaviruses, the one from Wuhan, help in the pandemic?
- cbsmith 3y ago
  You might expect they'd have contributed a lot, what with the being shut down and everyone and everything involved being subject to endless accusations and calls for investigations. Now tell me, how did all of those accusations and investigations help in the pandemic?

by xracy 3y ago

tmaly 3y ago

I have not kept up with this topic. What does the evidence point to? Has any new evidence surfaced in the past year?

xracy 3y ago
I have certainly not heard of any new evidence that would change my view that it was not caused by a lab-leak yet. My impression is that the market animal to human jump was still the prevailing theory.
toomim 3y ago
There has been little or no new physical evidence. We have seen new evidence of coverup, though, where scientists privately said there was high likelihood of lab leak in slack messages before publicly signing publications claiming there was no likelihood of lab leak. The leaked slack messages are damning.
- wredue 3y ago
  That’s a complete mischaracterization of that situation. The conversation DID ask if it was a leak. Then they studied the evidence and only after studying the evidence did they publicly sign that it was probably of natural origin.
  - toomim 3y ago
    That's not true at all. They had already studied the evidence on February 2 when they had the slack conversations. No new evidence appeared. Then they said out loud that they were changing the paper's conclusions away from their actual beliefs because of the political consequences: > “Given the shit show that would happen if anyone serious accused the Chinese of even accidental release, my feeling is we should say that given there is no evidence of a specifically engineered virus, we cannot possible distinguish between natural evolution and escape so we are content to with ascribing it to natural processes.” > “Yup, I totally agree that’s a very reasonable conclusion,” Andersen responded. Although I hate when politics is injected into science – but it’s impossible not to, especially given the circumstance. We should be sensitive to that.” https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-leak/ https://theintercept.com/2023/07/21/covid-origin-nih-lab-lea...
tootie 3y ago
There's really none. The biggest evidence is the fact that an animal reservoir was never found and it was found relatively quickly during the first SARS and MERS outbreaks. There's no evidence from the lab itself and no evidence the virus that reached the public was subject to GoF. And just general distrust of China.
someuser2345 3y ago
I don't think we'll ever find out. There's no incentive for the Chinese government to investigate this issue, and plenty of incentives to keep it hidden.

anon291 3y ago

Your argument here boils down to 'we shouldn't care if it's created in a lab, because even if it were, the benefits of studying viruses outweigh the risk'. It's funny that you accuse others of being 'armchair experts', when you yourself are being an armchair expert on the topic of the risk/benefit analysis of gain-of-function research. Moreover, your idea is even more dangerous because it necessitates that there will never be any expertise in this area. If no one investigates whether this was a lab leak, we'll never be able to put together proper research and data to answer the question of whether the benefits outweigh the risks of gain-of-function research. The main purpose behind determining if it's a lab leak is not to 'make jumps'. It's so that we know. It's important we know because it's how science and policy get done. Putting our fingers in our ears and covering our eyes and pretending it doesn't matter is irresponsible. > We've still not proven that COVID was a lab-leak, so we're attempting to say that something that otherwise has a very safe record is dangerous based on what might have happened. How is anyone supposed to prove or even provide evidence of such a thing if China doesn't cooperate? And that's really the reason this has exploded. China is not cooperating. No one knows, and that's suspicious. Even if, as you say, all indicators point to gain-of-function research being useful, I think we should all be able to agree that labs that are not open to being investigated by international, neutral bodies should not be involved in conducting them. The possibility of cover ups is too great.

xracy 3y ago
You're misrepresenting my argument at the top. My argument here is "We don't know that this was created in a lab, and it's unreasonable to assume it was when we have evidence that it wasn't created in a lab." It's even more unreasonable to create policy based on this wild speculation. > How is anyone supposed to prove or even provide evidence of such a thing if China doesn't cooperate? And that's really the reason this has exploded. China is not cooperating. No one knows, and that's suspicious. Difficulty in obtaining evidence doesn't change the burden of proof from "proving a positive" to "disproving a negative". "Suspicious" is not "damning evidence." But also my understanding is that scientists have studied the virus and determined it doesn't have any of the hallmarks they would expect from a human-altered virus.
- 3y ago

jrm4 3y ago

Yeah, nah. You're conflating certainty with risk. Crazy virus comes from where said crazy viruses are literally made and studied. Occams Razor suggests a lot, but more importantly, smart risk management dictates that you treat the lab as if it is the source; absent some sort of clear risk-related reason that these experiments are likely to do more good than harm. So I suppose the correct question is -- what are we getting from these labs that's worth the risk of leaks?

xracy 3y ago
There's literally an alternative proposed leak method that is the current consensus (market) that is more believable than the lab-leak theory.
- jrm4 3y ago
  This is the wet market theory, yes? I presume these wet markets exist in places other than Wuhan. Yeah, nah, that one is only "more believable" propped up by e.g. xenophobia and racism. Falls way too neatly into "look at the weird Chinese people they eat bats" or whatever. Pretty flimsy compared to "lab that literally does this kind of virus all day."
  - someuser2345 3y ago
    It's also a more convenient theory for the Chinese government. Its much less embarrassing to say "The virus came from rednecks eating weird things" than it is to say "The virus came from a government funded lab".
cbsmith 3y ago
> Crazy virus comes from where said crazy viruses are literally made and studied. "Crazy" is an odd characterization, but let's go with it. Where are "crazy viruses literally made"? Well, more often than not, in nature. So...

WatchDog 3y ago

> We've still not proven that COVID was a lab-leak We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. > so we're attempting to say that something that otherwise has a very safe record is dangerous based on what might have happened. I'm not sure how good the record really is[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...

xracy 3y ago
> We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P... Your second point is better taken.
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  I think if there's even a 49% chance that a certain kind of research caused the pandemic, it should be banned, because that's too high. Hell, even a 1% chance of another pandemic is too high, but I don't think any honest evaluator can put the odds of it having been a lab leak that low. It's not 100%, but I think anyone being honest with themselves about the evidence has to put it over at least 20%, and I think as high as 80%.
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  Burden of proof is a tragically misapplied concept. The question is what position should be the default given some uncertainty? This isn't decided in a vacuum. The default should be decided based on the facts and utility estimates of various outcomes where relevant. In the case where the issue is of purely academic interest, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. When the issue has real world consequences, then utility estimates of various outcomes are relevant. Who has the burden to demonstrate that GoF research is safe given our uncertainty of whether COVID was lab created and subsequently leaked? This issue isn't of purely academic interest. We must consider the costs to society of a leak vs the benefits of that research. From where I'm sitting, the benefits are non-existent relative to the costs. Given the massive negative utility of a leak compared to benefits of the research, the burden of proof is on those who want to continue doing GoF research to demonstrate safety and value.

arcticbull 3y ago

I'm not generally opposed to virology research - I do think that it's totally reasonable a lab leak could have lead to this. Coronaviruses (SARS specifically) have leaked from Chinese labs twice in the last 20 years. These aren't really even controversial incidents, the PRC admitted it. [2] Lab leaks of pathogens aren't really that uncommon, to the extent Wikipedia has a huge list including labs from all over the world. [1] tl;dr: viruses escape from labs, so it was never a far-fetched scenario. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/

coupdejarnac 3y ago

Chinese social media was spreading rumours about the virus being created and spread by the US army even before wuhan was locked down. Your opinion has been shaped by a massive disinformation campaign.

dist-epoch 3y ago

How exactly did the world-leading research institute in coronaviruses, the one from Wuhan, help in the pandemic?

cbsmith 3y ago
You might expect they'd have contributed a lot, what with the being shut down and everyone and everything involved being subject to endless accusations and calls for investigations. Now tell me, how did all of those accusations and investigations help in the pandemic?