5 ms·

> It's so strange to demand so much more proof of lab origin than one does of non-lab origin. It's not, zoonotic transmission has happened many times, lab leak

> It's so strange to demand so much more proof of lab origin than one does of non-lab origin. It's not, zoonotic transmission has happened many times, lab leak is the extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence

pstuart 2y ago
And there's been mutations in the virus since the initial exposure. How could that happen? How can a virus change its genetic code without a lab to do it?!?!!/s Regardless of the source, it was dangerous but could have been better mitigated if it was taken seriously as a threat (not just a "common cold").
labster 2y ago
You just set an arbitrary bar that that is higher for the lab leak based on an “everybody knows” argument. That’s not science, it’s faith.
- strangecasts 2y ago
  Prior probability estimates are not part of science?
  - labster 2y ago
    Prior probability estimates of p = 0.083 are not extraordinary. As the sibling says one out of twelve past pandemics was a known lab leak.
    - strangecasts 2y ago
      Okay, but your objection was requiring more evidence for the less likely assertion constituted an "arbitrary bar", you cannot argue that and quote _an arbitrary estimate by another commenter_
tripletao 2y ago
The 1977 flu is uncontroversially accepted to have arisen from a research accident, probably either an inadequately attenuated vaccine or a challenge trial in human subjects. The death toll is typically reported as 700,000, though I don't think that's a very good number and I can't find the methodology. Many fewer people died in the 1977-78 season; but the virus has continued to spread, so the cumulative toll is much higher (and continues to increase). https://muse.jhu.edu/article/936217 https://muse.jhu.edu/article/936217 So how many people have to die before this is no longer an extraordinary claim? Bhopal managed to change chemical manufacturing standards with "only" thousands or tens of thousands of deaths; but the 1977 flu is somehow completely forgotten. Perhaps the death toll is so high that people simply can't believe it? YouTube's fact-checkers recently removed an unambiguously factual description of the 1977 pandemic, ignoring appeals well-referenced into the peer-reviewed literature with no stated justification. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-i-fell-foul-of-youtubes-fact-checkers/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-i-fell-foul-of-youtu...
- strangecasts 2y ago
  The argument is not "research accidents categorically do not happen" it was "are they the more common event and therefore the more probable explanation, absent anything else"
  - tripletao 2y ago
    Depending how we count, there have been a dozen or so pandemics comparably novel or deadly to the 1977 flu in the last fifty years. Of those, at least one was research-origin. So are you really saying p ~ 1/12 is an "extraordinary claim"? Is a 6'1" American man "extraordinarily tall"? There's unfortunately no standard map between English phrases and numerical probabilities, but I think most people would understand a much lower probability. If you really want to define it that way, then "extraordinary evidence" is likewise diluted to the point that the circumstantial case (emergence in Wuhan, DEFUSE) brings research origin easily into contention.
    - strangecasts 2y ago

pstuart 2y ago

And there's been mutations in the virus since the initial exposure. How could that happen? How can a virus change its genetic code without a lab to do it?!?!!/s Regardless of the source, it was dangerous but could have been better mitigated if it was taken seriously as a threat (not just a "common cold").

labster 2y ago

You just set an arbitrary bar that that is higher for the lab leak based on an “everybody knows” argument. That’s not science, it’s faith.

strangecasts 2y ago
Prior probability estimates are not part of science?
- labster 2y ago
  Prior probability estimates of p = 0.083 are not extraordinary. As the sibling says one out of twelve past pandemics was a known lab leak.
  - strangecasts 2y ago
    Okay, but your objection was requiring more evidence for the less likely assertion constituted an "arbitrary bar", you cannot argue that and quote _an arbitrary estimate by another commenter_

tripletao 2y ago

The 1977 flu is uncontroversially accepted to have arisen from a research accident, probably either an inadequately attenuated vaccine or a challenge trial in human subjects. The death toll is typically reported as 700,000, though I don't think that's a very good number and I can't find the methodology. Many fewer people died in the 1977-78 season; but the virus has continued to spread, so the cumulative toll is much higher (and continues to increase). https://muse.jhu.edu/article/936217 https://muse.jhu.edu/article/936217 So how many people have to die before this is no longer an extraordinary claim? Bhopal managed to change chemical manufacturing standards with "only" thousands or tens of thousands of deaths; but the 1977 flu is somehow completely forgotten. Perhaps the death toll is so high that people simply can't believe it? YouTube's fact-checkers recently removed an unambiguously factual description of the 1977 pandemic, ignoring appeals well-referenced into the peer-reviewed literature with no stated justification. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-i-fell-foul-of-youtubes-fact-checkers/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-i-fell-foul-of-youtu...

strangecasts 2y ago
The argument is not "research accidents categorically do not happen" it was "are they the more common event and therefore the more probable explanation, absent anything else"
- tripletao 2y ago
  Depending how we count, there have been a dozen or so pandemics comparably novel or deadly to the 1977 flu in the last fifty years. Of those, at least one was research-origin. So are you really saying p ~ 1/12 is an "extraordinary claim"? Is a 6'1" American man "extraordinarily tall"? There's unfortunately no standard map between English phrases and numerical probabilities, but I think most people would understand a much lower probability. If you really want to define it that way, then "extraordinary evidence" is likewise diluted to the point that the circumstantial case (emergence in Wuhan, DEFUSE) brings research origin easily into contention.
  - strangecasts 2y ago