4 ms·

I had a pretty long post about this here before, due to the politicization of the issue it is highly unlikely any of us will ever know “the truth” without a sur

I had a pretty long post about this here before, due to the politicization of the issue it is highly unlikely any of us will ever know “the truth” without a surprise smoking gun. There are good reasons to believe the natural or the lab leak hypotheses. I think you have to accept it is now unlikely we normies will ever know the truth. The post, and its comments, are worth reading still IMO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26750452#26751943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26750452#26751943

rufus_foreman 2y ago
[flagged]
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  If I ask "what happened?" whatever you answer will be disagreed with by about half the observers of the question.
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - n4r9 2y ago
    There's a certain sort of fanatic who believes that everyone has the same opinions as them under the covers, but are disagreeing purely for performance purposes.
- nunobrito 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - timewizard 2y ago
    > without fear of downvotes That this even exists is a fundamental part of the problem.
    - nunobrito 2y ago
      Participants here are afraid of losing "points" and care about "winning" points. So you end up increasing the bias towards what gets you points rather than frank conversations based on a bigger array of facts than just the convenient facts. Corona made this painfully visible. With facebook and others only admitting 4 years later that they completely muffed the other side of the conversations with downvotings, shadowbanning, suspending accounts when those voices had a perfectly valid reason to argue and question the official narrative. The funny thing is that 99% of the users here will look with disdain to the burnings on public squares, but they behave exactly that way in a digital format today. We won't change that system since it is human nature, but at least it will be recorded in history that some humans we're trying to revert that situation.
  - bagful 2y ago
    No greater horror has ever been dispensed upon the martyrs of truth but a downwards pointed thumb
  - eightysixfour 2y ago
    Actually, you've made my point quite clearly. The fact that you think you know the answer without a doubt, and that I am refusing to acknowledge it due to political reasons, is exactly why we won't know the truth. If you were to step back and evaluate the possibilities rationally, acknowledge the evidence you do and do not have, and ask how well your heuristics are calibrated to this domain, you would see that not only do you not have any real answers to this question, but that you are as fundamentally incapable of adding meaningful value to the conversation as a biologist is to a deep cybersecurity investigation.
    - nunobrito 2y ago
      Too long, didn't read and don't really care. Dewokenization is coming to town.
pinkmuffinere 2y ago
I feel this is a great summary, and really calls out the issues that we are certain of — namely the politicization and the resulting uncertainty. IMO, everything else is difficult to know with high confidence, because of those two issues.
bhickey 2y ago
> unlikely we normies will ever know the truth Thanks for the dose of epistemic humility. I'm willing to go one step further: It's plausible that no one knows the truth. Keeping secrets is hard. If someone knew they might've died in the early stages of the outbreak.
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  There’s an asymmetry of potential evidence for each of the theories as well. • If it was a lab leak, then even if the people responsible are dead, there was likely data that could trace it back. It is unlikely that data still exists or is findable, for obvious reasons. • If it was not a lab leak, it may be impossible to find evidence to prove that is the case.
  - indoordin0saur 2y ago
    People always talk about early covid like it was some hyper-lethal virus. Remember, if you were a mostly healthy, non-elderly adult the death rate was like 1 in a thousand. I've read a few of people's amateur investigations about the early days of the virus and there are many cases where people point to potential witnesses whose testimony and evidence is lost because they apparently died from the virus. Did the virus greatly moderate in it's lethality in the first weeks? Was the Chinese government initially freaking out and euthanizing the infected?
    - eightysixfour 2y ago
      My hypothesis is that it did not become less deadly, it is that a combo of demographics and response (both positive and negative) played more of a role than we are ready to admit, mostly because we still seem to feel like everyone did a bad job when the response was probably closer to “fine.” The response in China, once things got out of control, included locking sick people in their homes. This form of quarantine is probably good to reduce spread, but it is also probably bad for the health of the patient. If there are multiple people in the home, it is probably worse for all of them. China also has a lot of multigenerational households (grandparents, adults, children) which means the vulnerable are together with people who are lower mortality risk, but higher risk for traveling and getting infected. I don’t know what percent of households in Wuhan were like this, but it probably played some sort of role. We also forget that it wasn’t only China that got wrecked - Italy also had substantial challenges. On the other hand, if your healthcare system isn’t overwhelmed, people are wearing masks so initial exposure is low, and you are caring for/separating the sick from the healthy, the outcomes are probably exponentially better. It certainly seems that later strains were less dangerous though.
florbo 2y ago
> There are good reasons to believe the natural or the lab leak hypotheses. Given the ridiculous response from everyone involved, I'm just going to assume it was an accidental biosecurity breach of a natural specimen. It happens frequently enough and enough puzzle pieces seem to fit. Not that I care or think anything should come of it, other than hopefully learning better biosecurity procedures.
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  > I'm just going to assume it was an accidental biosecurity breach of a natural specimen. Why bother assuming? Why isn’t “I don’t know” good enough?
  - florbo 2y ago
    Sorry, it was a given. We don't know. I don't know. I do enjoy postulating for this particular incident, though.
    - eightysixfour 2y ago
      > Sorry, it was a given. No sorry necessary. I just think it is interesting how hard it is to not have an opinion about something beyond "I don't know." We all seem to feel more comfortable making an assumption and picking an answer, even when it won't change our behavior and not picking has no cost.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - florbo 2y ago
        > I just think it is interesting how hard it is to not have an opinion about something beyond "I don't know." I hadn't thought of this before. I wonder if we naturally formulate an opinion or hypothesis when we're curious about something. Which I did again just now.. huh.
morepedantic 2y ago
The lab leak is more likely than zoonosis. Uncertainty still dominates. The take away is not that we'll never know. The take away is that governments conspired to obscure the truth, control public opinion, and censor dissent.

rufus_foreman 2y ago

[flagged]

shadowgovt 2y ago
If I ask "what happened?" whatever you answer will be disagreed with by about half the observers of the question.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  [flagged]
- n4r9 2y ago
  There's a certain sort of fanatic who believes that everyone has the same opinions as them under the covers, but are disagreeing purely for performance purposes.
nunobrito 2y ago
[flagged]
- timewizard 2y ago
  > without fear of downvotes That this even exists is a fundamental part of the problem.
  - nunobrito 2y ago
    Participants here are afraid of losing "points" and care about "winning" points. So you end up increasing the bias towards what gets you points rather than frank conversations based on a bigger array of facts than just the convenient facts. Corona made this painfully visible. With facebook and others only admitting 4 years later that they completely muffed the other side of the conversations with downvotings, shadowbanning, suspending accounts when those voices had a perfectly valid reason to argue and question the official narrative. The funny thing is that 99% of the users here will look with disdain to the burnings on public squares, but they behave exactly that way in a digital format today. We won't change that system since it is human nature, but at least it will be recorded in history that some humans we're trying to revert that situation.
- bagful 2y ago
  No greater horror has ever been dispensed upon the martyrs of truth but a downwards pointed thumb
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  Actually, you've made my point quite clearly. The fact that you think you know the answer without a doubt, and that I am refusing to acknowledge it due to political reasons, is exactly why we won't know the truth. If you were to step back and evaluate the possibilities rationally, acknowledge the evidence you do and do not have, and ask how well your heuristics are calibrated to this domain, you would see that not only do you not have any real answers to this question, but that you are as fundamentally incapable of adding meaningful value to the conversation as a biologist is to a deep cybersecurity investigation.
  - nunobrito 2y ago
    Too long, didn't read and don't really care. Dewokenization is coming to town.

pinkmuffinere 2y ago

I feel this is a great summary, and really calls out the issues that we are certain of — namely the politicization and the resulting uncertainty. IMO, everything else is difficult to know with high confidence, because of those two issues.

bhickey 2y ago

> unlikely we normies will ever know the truth Thanks for the dose of epistemic humility. I'm willing to go one step further: It's plausible that no one knows the truth. Keeping secrets is hard. If someone knew they might've died in the early stages of the outbreak.

eightysixfour 2y ago
There’s an asymmetry of potential evidence for each of the theories as well. • If it was a lab leak, then even if the people responsible are dead, there was likely data that could trace it back. It is unlikely that data still exists or is findable, for obvious reasons. • If it was not a lab leak, it may be impossible to find evidence to prove that is the case.
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
  People always talk about early covid like it was some hyper-lethal virus. Remember, if you were a mostly healthy, non-elderly adult the death rate was like 1 in a thousand. I've read a few of people's amateur investigations about the early days of the virus and there are many cases where people point to potential witnesses whose testimony and evidence is lost because they apparently died from the virus. Did the virus greatly moderate in it's lethality in the first weeks? Was the Chinese government initially freaking out and euthanizing the infected?
  - eightysixfour 2y ago
    My hypothesis is that it did not become less deadly, it is that a combo of demographics and response (both positive and negative) played more of a role than we are ready to admit, mostly because we still seem to feel like everyone did a bad job when the response was probably closer to “fine.” The response in China, once things got out of control, included locking sick people in their homes. This form of quarantine is probably good to reduce spread, but it is also probably bad for the health of the patient. If there are multiple people in the home, it is probably worse for all of them. China also has a lot of multigenerational households (grandparents, adults, children) which means the vulnerable are together with people who are lower mortality risk, but higher risk for traveling and getting infected. I don’t know what percent of households in Wuhan were like this, but it probably played some sort of role. We also forget that it wasn’t only China that got wrecked - Italy also had substantial challenges. On the other hand, if your healthcare system isn’t overwhelmed, people are wearing masks so initial exposure is low, and you are caring for/separating the sick from the healthy, the outcomes are probably exponentially better. It certainly seems that later strains were less dangerous though.

florbo 2y ago

> There are good reasons to believe the natural or the lab leak hypotheses. Given the ridiculous response from everyone involved, I'm just going to assume it was an accidental biosecurity breach of a natural specimen. It happens frequently enough and enough puzzle pieces seem to fit. Not that I care or think anything should come of it, other than hopefully learning better biosecurity procedures.

eightysixfour 2y ago
> I'm just going to assume it was an accidental biosecurity breach of a natural specimen. Why bother assuming? Why isn’t “I don’t know” good enough?
- florbo 2y ago
  Sorry, it was a given. We don't know. I don't know. I do enjoy postulating for this particular incident, though.
  - eightysixfour 2y ago
    > Sorry, it was a given. No sorry necessary. I just think it is interesting how hard it is to not have an opinion about something beyond "I don't know." We all seem to feel more comfortable making an assumption and picking an answer, even when it won't change our behavior and not picking has no cost.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - florbo 2y ago
      > I just think it is interesting how hard it is to not have an opinion about something beyond "I don't know." I hadn't thought of this before. I wonder if we naturally formulate an opinion or hypothesis when we're curious about something. Which I did again just now.. huh.

morepedantic 2y ago

The lab leak is more likely than zoonosis. Uncertainty still dominates. The take away is not that we'll never know. The take away is that governments conspired to obscure the truth, control public opinion, and censor dissent.