[HN Gopher] An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate...
___________________________________________________________________
An appeal for an objective, open, transparent debate re: the origin
of Covid-19
Author : alwillis
Score : 147 points
Date : 2021-09-19 07:03 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.thelancet.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.thelancet.com)
| PicassoCTs wrote:
| Liaison for the Wuhan Virology Institute and later WHO
| Investigator into his own lab, in his own words, 1 year pre Covid
| outbreak :
|
| https://youtu.be/IdYDL_RK--w?t=1773
|
| But honestly, it does not matter. What matters is that there is a
| whole culture who allows shutting down narratives, as it pleases
| for whatever failed reflexes control it. That culture has to go.
| Right, Left and center.
| noptd wrote:
| >But honestly, it does not matter. What matters is that there
| is a whole culture who allows shutting down narratives, as it
| pleases for whatever failed reflexes control it.
|
| I disagree - they both matter.
| advael wrote:
| It's a mantra at this point that polarization has gotten out of
| control, but one of the biggest effects it seems to have is this
| reverse-psychology effect
|
| I'm in a big American city, and I remember that until the online
| kids and snarky liberals started moralizing about mask protocol,
| there wasn't as much resistance to wearing masks among right-wing
| crazies.
|
| I remember when there was that controversy about 5G networks
| interfering with bird migration patterns and meteorology, but as
| the fringe conspiracy crowd started spinning up crazy theories
| about how 5G was going to brainwash or sterilize or force-
| feminize people over the airwaves or whatever it was, most people
| I knew stopped talking about it, seemed to forget that they had
| ever thought it concerning. It reminded me of the time people
| were worried about pollutants causing hormonal changes in
| indicator species, and then Alex Jones started talking about how
| "they're turning the frogs gay" and the meaningful version of
| that discourse vanished too.
|
| I view the same kind of thing as happening here, as well as a lot
| of other places. It's made me wary of the sport of finding what
| crazy things my political enemies believe to make fun of them,
| because it seems like the net effect of this is creating
| "opposite" erroneous beliefs with no evidence
| eunos wrote:
| > until the online kids and snarky liberals started moralizing
| about mask protocol, there wasn't as much resistance to wearing
| masks among right-wing crazies.
|
| Surprising how easy it is to fracture American society then.
| advael wrote:
| I would have been surprised even as recently as ten years
| ago. Now, I am not. American society has been fractured for
| quite some time, and is only growing more fractured, exactly
| because of how easy it is in the current political climate
| and with current technology
| Thorentis wrote:
| The scary part is that it's impossible to verify where most of
| the online content on both sides come from. The enemies of the
| West must be having a field day with how easy it is to insert
| radically opposite and polarising views into each side and then
| watching big issues become quashed, and little issues become
| magnified beyond proportion.
| ianleeclark wrote:
| > It's a mantra at this point that polarization has gotten out
| of control, but one of the biggest effects it seems to have is
| this reverse-psychology effect
|
| I've long thought the best way of reaching 100% vaccination in
| the US was to have competing Democrat and Republican vaccines.
| Democrats could don a dashiki and say one thing while
| Republicans could put up a crack smoking pillow salesman to say
| another.
| eunos wrote:
| Make 1 vaccine brand "endorsed by Republican" and other brand
| "endorsed by Democrat"
| varelse wrote:
| This was a stroke of pure genius by this writer at Breitbart
| IMO. Spoilers: it breaks the narrative so it doesn't work.
|
| https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2021/09/10/nolte-
| how...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Was that satire? I honestly couldn't tell.
| varelse wrote:
| That's pretty much my take on America right now as well
| coincidentally.
| titzer wrote:
| As an American who has lived abroad for a significant number of
| years and returned recently, it becomes abundantly clear, that
| if we only measure by the amount of time spent bitching,
| moaning, and fighting, Americans hate each other more than
| anything else on this planet. Disease, war, famine, injustice,
| genocide, plague? None will garner as much sincere unflagging
| burning rage as what those other fuckers did or said, or would
| do or say, because hate, hate, hate, hate. It's worse than
| football teams or some rivalry with the neighboring state. At
| this point, people are literally killing themselves and others
| to own the other side. And maybe both sides are enjoying this
| thrill a little too much.
| jackfoxy wrote:
| It's pretty easy to find old video clips of both Biden and
| Harris talking very skeptically about how fast a vaccine could
| be rolled out, its efficacy, and safety before they won the
| election. Contrast with the administration's policy today.
| void_mint wrote:
| > I'm in a big American city, and I remember that until the
| online kids and snarky liberals started moralizing about mask
| protocol, there wasn't as much resistance to wearing masks
| among right-wing crazies.
|
| We're living in very different worlds I guess.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| I do know some conservative, religious, pro-Trump communities
| were very focused on stopping the spread of covid and locking
| down. It wasn't a partisan issue, it was common knowledge
| that covid-19 made people sick and we had to stop it.
|
| Until Donald Trump decided to say covid-19 is a hoax and
| preventative measures are unnecessary. Presumably because
| he's so contrarian that anything the Democrats supported he
| opposed and vice versa. It was a dumb move and many
| (including me) believe it cost him the election, if he
| decided to support lockdowns I really think he would've won
| by a long shot.
|
| And now it's too late, since many conservatives got so
| invested in the fact that covid-19 is fake, and people can't
| admit when they're wrong. I wish liberals were more
| sympathetic and tried to make it easier for conservatives to
| accept the vaccine instead of mocking and shaming. But it's
| so hard to get people to admit when they're wrong.
| midasuni wrote:
| It's interesting. Her run the U.K. vaccine take up amongst
| older demographics is nearly 100%, and the left/right split
| has major age differences. The right and old are massively
| pro vaccines because their man in government (Johnson)
| slapped a flag on it and said it was great.
|
| If Corbyn had won in 2019 (from a higher youth turnout and
| lower elder turnout), there's no way the press or the elder
| demographics would be so accepting, and the country would
| be polarised with covid as a pivot.
| void_mint wrote:
| > And now it's too late, since many conservatives got so
| invested in the fact that covid-19 is fake, and people
| can't admit when they're wrong. I wish liberals were more
| sympathetic and tried to make it easier for conservatives
| to accept the vaccine instead of mocking and shaming. But
| it's so hard to get people to admit when they're wrong.
|
| It's interesting that you didn't say "I wish more
| conservatives would admit they were wrong", but instead put
| the onus of action on liberals.
| alecst wrote:
| I kind of feel the same way. Like if our goal is
| vaccination, yea, republicans do have to eat some humble
| pie, but liberals shouldn't make it harder for them than
| it has to be.
| void_mint wrote:
| > but liberals shouldn't make it harder for them than it
| has to be.
|
| It's not hard. It's insanely not hard. It's so
| unfathomably not difficult that this comment reads like
| satire. Walk into any grocery store or pharmacy.
| 8note wrote:
| Emotionally difficult*
|
| The comment is calling republicans special snowflakes who
| can't change their minds without being coddled to do so,
| so they can keep an air of superiority over the liberal
| degenerates
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| armchairhacker wrote:
| No I do put most of the blame on conservatives. They're
| the ones who aren't taking vaccines or wearing masks.
|
| It just doesn't excuse some liberals from encouraging
| this left/right divide and just being nasty. Things like
| r/HermanCainAward, being proud when vaccine deniers get
| sick. At least understand that when someone is literally
| putting themselves in danger, they're not evil or
| selfish, they're delusional and misinformed.
| void_mint wrote:
| > No I do put most of the blame on conservatives. They're
| the ones who aren't taking vaccines or wearing masks.
|
| My comment was about how, if this statement is true, you
| mostly skipped over it in favor of asking for action out
| of non-conservatives.
| birken wrote:
| Yes, don't you remember the early days of the pandemic when
| Donald Trump was very pro-mask, including regularly wearing a
| mask himself, and then only when the liberal started
| moralizing he turned anti-mask?
| [deleted]
| void_mint wrote:
| Are we talking about political figures or the people that
| follow them? The poster I'm responding to is talking about
| the latter.
|
| _edit_ Someone already pointed out that this is an obvious
| biased misinformation post.
| op00to wrote:
| Ex-president, twice impeached Trump on April 3, 2020 at the
| White House: "The C.D.C. is advising the use of nonmedical
| cloth face covering as an additional voluntary public
| health measure. So it's voluntary. You don't have to do it.
| They suggested for a period of time, but this is voluntary.
| I don't think I'm going to be doing it."
|
| "I just don't want to be doing -- I don't know, somehow
| sitting in the Oval Office behind that beautiful Resolute
| Desk, the great Resolute Desk. I think wearing a face mask
| as I greet presidents, prime ministers, dictators, kings,
| queens -- I don't know, somehow I don't see it for myself.
| I just, I just don't."
|
| You are delusional.
| advael wrote:
| I think they were being facetious. Yes, mask compliance
| was probably a bad example, because this was politicized
| from both sides pretty much right away. I think the
| general point stands though
| anigbrowl wrote:
| They're not delusional, they're sarcastic. Like
| hyperbole, this isn't conducive to good discussions. I'm
| so tired of internet discourse where people are
| constantly trying to one-up each other.
| slacka wrote:
| > you remember the early days of the pandemic when Donald
| Trump was very pro-mask, including regularly wearing a mask
| himself,
|
| I don't remember it. Because it never happened:
| https://apnews.com/article/michael-pence-virus-outbreak-
| dona...
|
| It wasn't until the pandemic was raging in the summer that
| he wore a mask in public and then quickly stopped doing so.
| He even put on a show of ripping off his mask after he came
| back from his Covid hospitalization.
| nradov wrote:
| I would encourage everyone interested in the virus origins to
| read the US DNI Unclassified Summary of Assessment on COVID-19
| Origins. While it's inherently somewhat politicized it contains a
| good, readable summary of the origin hypotheses and evidence.
|
| https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...
| roenxi wrote:
| In the absence of anything else, the existence of RaTG13 seems
| like pretty reasonable circumstantial evidence of it being a lab
| leak. The lab had RaTG13 samples - so either the disease
| travelled a rather long way from Yunnan to Wuhan or someone in
| the lab was experimenting with the virus doing something
| interesting and novel.
| prox wrote:
| My take is that there is sufficient motive for China not
| wanting it to be a lab leak. It opens up the door for blame and
| scrutiny, something the Chinese Government hates beyond all
| other things if we look at their profile of operation.
|
| That alone, and doors that got closed when it came to
| researching the lab is suspicious.
|
| Whatever it may be, the original sars had a solid origin within
| 6 months of research.
| op00to wrote:
| > the original SARS had a solid origin within 6 months of
| research
|
| ... citation required and also an explanation of what "within
| 6 month of research". Exactly when did this 6 month period
| start and finish?
| prox wrote:
| See Wikipedia on SARS section "origin and animal vectors"
| 3grdlurker wrote:
| .
| lucian1900 wrote:
| They did announce a new virus when it became clear it wasn't
| SARS. Then most countries did nothing about it for months.
| hamburgerwah wrote:
| From the lancet of all places. They completely destroyed
| centuries of reputation for cheap political points in all this.
| Too little too late.
| raverbashing wrote:
| The Lancet's reputation is in a downturn since the Wakefield
| case
| mctt wrote:
| Thanks. Interesting read,
| https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-
| retra...
| phodge wrote:
| I've never worked in virus research, but my understanding is that
| any researcher would be keeping meticulous records of every virus
| they're studying, as well as detailed information about genetic
| differences with any variants they have produced. So if the
| Chinese govt simply seized access to all research projects at the
| lab at Wuhan they would have been able to compare all viruses
| within the lab with SARS-Cov-2 within a matter of weeks and have
| an extremely confident Yes or No as to whether it came from their
| lab.
|
| I'd love to be refuted on the above by someone with actual viral
| research experience because the alternative conclusion is that
| the Chinese govt has known the true origin of SARS-Cov-2 since
| early 2020 and simply won't tell anyone.
| sneak wrote:
| Now how would anyone else ever get access to that evidence, if
| the people who physically control it don't want it to be widely
| known?
|
| If indeed it ever existed, such would almost certainly have
| been destroyed by now.
|
| Ultimately the source/origin story only matters to narrative or
| those who would push political narratives of good/evil
| guilty/innocent. We have to live in the world that exists today
| regardless of whether it was chance or carelessness that caused
| it.
| jml7c5 wrote:
| The lab did do that (...or just claimed they did, if you're
| inclined to believe there's been a cover-up):
|
| >Shi instructed her group to repeat the tests and, at the same
| time, sent the samples to another facility to sequence the full
| viral genomes. Meanwhile she frantically went through her own
| lab's records from the past few years to check for any
| mishandling of experimental materials, especially during
| disposal. Shi breathed a sigh of relief when the results came
| back: none of the sequences matched those of the viruses her
| team had sampled from bat caves. "That really took a load off
| my mind," she says. "I had not slept a wink for days."
|
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-wo...
| peakaboo wrote:
| We live in interesting times, where "conspiracy theories" become
| true after about 6 months.
|
| The reality of the situation is that people who actually pay
| attention, not the ones who constantly watch the TV news
| narrative, have been able to not only understand the true origin
| of covid, but also predict the entire chain of events that has
| occurred as a consequence.
|
| When will the general public stop seeing conspiracy theories as
| imaginary tales? They have been 100% accurate so far with covid.
|
| People who follow conspiracy theories are not stupid - that's why
| they are looking for what actually happened.
| CJefferson wrote:
| Please give us a list of the 100% accurate conspiracy theories
| for COVID.
| laumars wrote:
| The interesting thing about conspiracy theories are that those
| few which have merit quickly get talked about in the open by
| credible researchers rather than trivially debunked by the
| average person after about 5 minutes of internet research.
| playcache wrote:
| > When will the general public stop seeing conspiracy theories
| as imaginary tales?
|
| Covid leaked from a lab is viable. Bill Gates injecting
| microchips into everyone in order to invoke a new global cabal
| I would argue is firmly in the imaginary tale bracket.
| peakaboo wrote:
| So far, I agree. Nothing has been able to show microchips in
| the vaccines. If its there, it's using technology that is so
| far ahead of what's in the general domain that it's
| undetectable. It doesn't seem plausible at all.
| asxd wrote:
| Also, why? What gain would come from putting little
| computers into people's blood?
|
| If it's for some sort of behavioral tracking, it seems like
| a lot of effort considering everyone is already carrying a
| computer in their pocket.
|
| I guess I also would like to know why Bill Gates has become
| such a target for conspiracy theorists lately? My
| impression has been that he's pretty sincerely involved in
| improving conditions in the underdeveloped world. I'm
| wondering if I missed something that caused people to
| believe he has some horrible intention?
|
| I hope this is taken as an honest question. I know it's
| easy to bash on folks who buy into conspiracy theories, but
| I also happen to know (and am fond of) quite a few of them.
| Bringing up these topics is always delicate, and I'd be
| interested in getting to know what's going through their
| minds.
| dkersten wrote:
| > If it's for some sort of behavioral tracking, it seems
| like a lot of effort considering everyone is already
| carrying a computer in their pocket.
|
| Not to mention.. how would you even get the data off the
| microchips? (Or onto it for that matter, what magical
| microscopic sensors can detect your behaviour from your
| blood?) The antenna would be incredibly tiny and if my
| limited knowledge of wireless tech is anything to go by,
| that would mean you'd need a very high energy high
| frequency RF signal. Where's this energy being pulled out
| of and how is it getting through your skin and doing it
| without burning you?
|
| About the only possible thing I could think of is
| something passively readable like an ID. But even then,
| I'm not convinced something that's microscopic enough to
| fit in the vaccine needles (which are tiny!) would be
| detectable through skin and muscle tissue.
| asxd wrote:
| Somewhat related--this kind of reminds me of the somewhat
| common belief that your phone is listening to your
| conversations, due to oddly relevant ads coming up after
| discussing some product with a friend.
|
| It seems like if that were true, companies must be
| employing some wildly amazing technology to solve energy
| and data issues.
|
| I think I'm put off by quite a few conspiracy theories
| because they seem to assume the powers at be are
| amazingly competent, and I just have a hard time
| believing that's actually the case.
| dkersten wrote:
| > they seem to assume the powers at be are amazingly
| competent
|
| This is so true! Half the time they barely manage to get
| even simple things done because it's incredibly hard to
| get consensus or agreement on something. Or things are
| brought to a standstill due to bureaucracy.
| petre wrote:
| > I guess I also would like to know why Bill Gates has
| become such a target for conspiracy theorists lately?
|
| He has been warning about this pandemic and has been
| pushing vaccines. I don't know his motives but the
| conspiracy theorist narrative is that it's to control
| population growth, sterilize poorer people etc.
| bronzeage wrote:
| The biggest reason for Bill Gates conspiracy theories is
| event 201: https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/
| Bill Gates's foundation initiated that. It's a pandemic
| wargame which happened suspiciously close to the actual
| pandemic, and it's also the only pandemic wargame they
| ever did.
| asxd wrote:
| > The biggest reason for Bill Gates conspiracy theories
| is event 201:
| https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/ Bill
| Gates's foundation initiated that. It's a pandemic
| wargame which happened suspiciously close to the actual
| pandemic, and it's also the only pandemic wargame they
| ever did.
|
| I can see why that _might_ seem suspicious, but isn 't it
| equally likely it was a sincere effort to prepare the
| world for a somewhat periodic event? Especially given
| previous disease prevention efforts by Gates.
| dkersten wrote:
| Coincidences also happen surprisingly often, if you watch
| out for them. For example, there are many known cases
| throughout history where multiple people independently
| discovered or invented the same thing at about the same
| time.
|
| So that Covid19 happened so soon after his wargame
| doesn't seem suspicious to me, just coincidental, and it
| shows that Bill knows what he's talking about and that
| his concerns in this area are worth listening to.
| zionic wrote:
| I monitor conspiracy stuff heavily and I never saw anyone
| there claim there were microchips in the vaccines.
|
| I did however see a bunch of comments in "mainstream"
| sections mocking a conspiracy I never saw support for.
| hn8788 wrote:
| My wife's cousin certainly believes it. But even in the
| small southern town she lives in that is full of people who
| think covid is made up, everyone else else thinks she's
| crazy for thinking the vaccines have microchips in them.
| krona wrote:
| Psychology experiments into conformity show, conclusively, that
| the vast majority of people will unconsciously distort (to
| varying degrees) their own perception of reality to fit a
| prevailing orthodoxy, or 'narrative'. In many contexts many
| are, in a sense, incapable of unorthodox thinking.
|
| Personally I find this research quite depressing, but revealing
| about the current environment, since it seems to be getting
| worse. _argumentum ad populum_ defines the truth since any fact
| is so easily 'fact-checked' in to oblivion.
| tjpnz wrote:
| The lab leak hypothesis has backing from credible scientists.
| Conspiracy nuts had nothing to do with it's rise to prominence.
| They just related it to their existing batch of paranoid
| delusions.
| tasogare wrote:
| > but also predict the entire chain of events that has occurred
| as a consequence
|
| I wouldn't have agreed with you a year ago, but having seen it
| for myself, it's scary how true it is. All the wild "conspiracy
| theories" about the vaccine passport notably came to reality
| 6-8 months or so after being voiced.
| morsch wrote:
| _When will the general public stop seeing conspiracy theories
| as imaginary tales? They have been 100% accurate so far with
| covid._
|
| This can either mean a) all covid conspiracy theories are 100%
| accurate or b) some covid conspiracy theories are 100%
| accurate.
|
| Many covid conspiracy theories are incompatible with one
| another, so they cannot each be accurate 100%. So you cannot
| mean a). But b) is a much weaker claim: anything can be called
| a conspiracy theory, and consequently the claim just ends up
| being that somebody was right at some point in time. Claim b)
| has little to no predictive power.
| TheCowboy wrote:
| The best piece that one can read on the origin of covid is by
| Zeynep: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/opinion/coronavirus-
| lab.h...
|
| I am still confused how people think that it being an accidental
| "lab leak" is any more damning of the role China played in the
| initial outbreak. China made a lot of mistakes and also kept
| other countries in the dark for way too long no matter the
| origin. It can also serve as a warning against authoritarian
| models of rule.
|
| My criticism doesn't mean I think we shouldn't investigate the
| origins either. It is in the world's public interest to err on
| the side of knowing too much so that maybe the chance of this
| happening again is reduced.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Just wanted to second that I think Zeynep Tufekci has
| consistently had by far the best rational analysis of the
| pandemic over the past 18+ months. I find her commentary always
| does a great job at analysis and she never falls into the trap
| of social pressure affecting her conclusions or messaging.
| glitchc wrote:
| I think what it really brings to light (at least for me) is the
| incompetence of the CCP in the matter.
|
| I have no qualms about China conducting research in this
| regard, other countries are doing it too and we would be naive
| to think otherwise. However, if it is proven to be true that
| gain of function research was being conducted at the Wuhan
| laboratory, it highlights the sheer stupidity of the government
| in thinking they could build a military bio-weapons research
| laboratory in the heart of a major city center. Western nations
| that do have such facilities place them far away from high-
| density urban populations, precisely as a last-ditch measure to
| mitigate the impact of an (eventual) breach.
|
| It's worse for the CCP if it boils down to incompetence rather
| than malice. Becoming a laughingstock of the world and not
| being taken seriously is perhaps their deepest fear.
| krull10 wrote:
| I don't know if they do gain of function research there, but
| NEIDL is in the heart of Boston. https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/National_Emerging_Infectious_D...
| timr wrote:
| Pretty much every BSL4 facility in the US is within easy
| commuting distance from a major city. The CDC being a great
| example.
|
| These are not military, but it doesn't matter.
| angelzen wrote:
| Zing! This is how communist regimes work in practice:
|
| * Utter incompetency. Got to promote the 'working class' in
| positions of authority across the board regardless of actual
| qualifications. Got to follow ideological prescriptions to a
| T regardless of real-world outcomes.
|
| * Extreme message control. The communist society is perfect,
| except for those horrible people that refuse to support the
| party 100%. And also moving every day closer to perfection.
| Don't you dare ask questions, because then you become the
| reason why perfection has not been achieved, and the Party,
| as the legitimate representative of the people, will be
| justified to act against you.
| boulos wrote:
| > I am still confused how people think that it being an
| accidental "lab leak" is any more damning of the role China
| played in the initial outbreak.
|
| Huh. I think most people find that if something "happens to
| you" it's less your fault than if you "made it happen". If your
| house burns down from a gas line explosion nearby, that's bad
| luck for you. If it burns down because you had a pile of paper
| next to your stove while operating it, that's on you.
|
| How it was handled after the fact is probably similar (though
| again, if it was your own source, then it probably meant you
| had even earlier warning), but I believe it's mostly down to
| "things that happen to you versus things you cause".
| parineum wrote:
| If you had a grease fire in your kitchen but didn't call the
| fire department because you didn't want your neighbors to
| know you couldn't cook the situation would be similar.
| Especially if it burned down the whole neighborhood.
| titzer wrote:
| > China made a lot of mistakes and also kept other countries in
| the dark for way too long no matter the origin. It can also
| serve as a warning against authoritarian models of rule.
|
| It's typical CYA stuff from corrupt institutions that cannot
| abide transparency. For some, the appearance of having made a
| mistake or having been incompetent is so uncomfortable that
| they will stonewall all possible investigations to avoid
| looking like they've made mistakes. Even when those mistakes
| were just that--mistakes.
| peakaboo wrote:
| It's so interesting to me that people can't even imagine that
| covid could be intentionally created and let out. Not a leak, not
| an accident.
|
| Is it because people don't understand that actual evil exists
| outside of movies? That there are extreamly powerful people in
| the world that will throw babies into fires because they believe
| in occult entities? This is not imaginary.
|
| We live in a world where very evil people exist in high places,
| but also a world where many more good people exist, but usually
| not in as powerful positions.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Is it because people don't understand that actual evil exists
| outside of movies? That there are extreamly powerful people in
| the world that will throw babies into fires because they
| believe in occult entities? This is not imaginary.
|
| That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Everybody
| knows that babies are too valuable to be thrown into fires.
| They need to be murdered for their tasty, tasty
| adrenochrome[0]!
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
| roenxi wrote:
| If it were evil, they'd have tried harder. Which is also the
| argument against it being a bioweapon - most pathetic bioweapon
| ever if it was.
| tgv wrote:
| If we're going evil conspiracy: it could have been an attempt
| at bringing down the status quo. China very much wants to be
| top dog, and Mao once replied to the question what he would
| do if he lost his 100 million soldiers: I've got 900 million
| more.
| Maursault wrote:
| > if he lost his 100 million soldiers
|
| While today China has the largest military with 2.8M
| soldiers, sailors and airmen, Mao had, at best, 50K
| soldiers in his Red Army.
| fit2rule wrote:
| It has certainly taken the attention off the Wests'
| incredibly heinous war crimes and crimes against humanity.
|
| See for example, the genocide of Yemen.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Both bioweapons and chemical weapons suffer from a
| deployability problem. Sure, you will cause some harm; perhaps
| even great harm; but there is no guarantee you will emerge out
| of the chaos better off than your adversaries.
|
| What did China win so far? Paranoia of the rest of the world
| and an acute realization of most Western nations that they need
| to rethink their alliances (see the recent AUKUS story) and
| their supply chains.
|
| The only active malice scenario I could find plausible would be
| "a single person or a small cult such as Aum Shinrikyo decided
| to unleash horror on the world". But in the real world,
| accidents outnumber crimes by orders of magnitude.
| mmerlin wrote:
| To be fair, AUKUS is more of a reaction towards China
| invading other countries territorial waters, creating
| military bases there, and bullying any other boats (who are
| simply just working within their own countries waters, or
| just crossing the Sea that China now claims exclusively as
| theirs).
|
| Apparently for the past three years their vast 'fishing'
| fleets are also shining green lasers into the cockpits of
| passing planes and bridges of passing ships at night, to
| increase the stress and occupational risks heaped upon the
| shoulders of each captain/pilot of a non-Chinese boat/plane
| [1]
|
| Let's also not forget their MASSIVE KNEE JERK REACTION to the
| Australian PM stating that we needed China to cooperate more
| with the W.H.O. (scientists attempted to follow the normal
| discovery process investigating the origins of Covid, but
| were denied access to dated lab samples from the Wuhan lab
| [2])
|
| China was so insulted (and/or scared?) by these words that
| their knee-jerk reaction was to cut off billions of dollars
| of imports arriving from Australia, temporarily decimating
| some parts of our wine industry, and rock lobster export
| industry to China [3]
|
| [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-06/chinese-fishing-
| vesse...
|
| [2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-tells-who-its-
| not...
|
| [3] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-10/chinas-trade-war-
| with...
| asxd wrote:
| I think you're right to question authority, but it doesn't seem
| fair to make the claim that
|
| > "there are extreamly powerful people in the world that will
| throw babies into fires because they believe in occult
| entities"
|
| What makes you believe that is in any way prevalant? Maybe I'm
| an optimist, but it seems hard to believe that throwing babies
| into fires is considered okay, even at the highest social
| echelons.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| That is probably an allusion to the ancient cult of Moloch,
| but that, AFAIK, has died out a long time ago. Romans stamped
| out human sacrifice really hard. (They themselves used to
| practice it, but after approx. 100 BCE, they not only
| stopped, but turned against it and stopped tolerating it
| among subjugated nations.)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch
|
| The closest phenomena we have in modern world is suicidal
| jihadism, but its practicioners generally cannot be described
| as _extremely powerful_ , even if they managed to tire out
| Western powers in Afghanistan.
| devwastaken wrote:
| "In addition, the international research community has no access
| to the sites, samples, or raw data."
|
| The reason lab leak is considered a conspiracy theory, is because
| it's a literal conspiracy theory. The conspiracy being the CCP
| and potentially U.S. covering up a virus leak from their lab. Of
| course all sorts of other politics and disinformation get
| attached.
|
| Nobody has the evidence necessary to make evidence based theories
| on lab leak. All we have is hand waving and "maybe".
|
| Even if it did happen, what do you do? Sanction china? Tell them
| they were naughty? What this focus on lab leak without evidence
| does, is riles up the public, gets psuedo intellectual
| personalities in on the hand waving, and politics turns it into
| disinformation. The end result being anti-vaccine, anti-pharma,
| etc. Lab leak hypotheticals have so far done an incredible
| disservice.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| A hallmark of a conspiracy theory is you always have a cartoon
| villein behind it. In this case the CCP is Dr Evil.
|
| Also will say the approach the conspiracy theorists and foreign
| policy operatives have taken with this isn't likely to garner
| any transparency from China going forward. That's bad because
| fundamentally despite differences the Chinese and the the US
| have common interests in this.
| nradov wrote:
| The US federal government still officially considers a lab leak
| as a possibility. If it were ever proven then sanctions against
| China would be likely.
|
| https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...
| tomohawk wrote:
| If you want an objective and open and transparent debate, then a
| good place to start would be to stop censoring it.
|
| Here's but one of many cases.
|
| https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/sep/12/they-are-co...
|
| You can't arrive at the truth of a matter by only listening to
| those with enough power to shut down any countervailing opinions.
| wilsonfiifi wrote:
| Does it even matter any more? From where I stand Covid-19 might
| have been much less devastating globally if it had been treated
| seriously in the early days.
|
| In fact, based on the initial footage from Wuhan, countries
| should have adopted more stringent protocols when they
| repatriated their nationals, i.e. quarantine on arrival etc... If
| in doubt throw everything including the kitchen sink at just to
| be sure. But it is what it is. I just hope we've learnt from this
| and are prepared for the next one.
| petre wrote:
| It doesn't work. It didn't work for Australia and NZ. It just
| fuels racism and police abuse. What works is vaccinate as many
| people as possible even from poorer nations.
|
| The disease was already in curculation in Europe and the US
| when we found out about it.
|
| Its outcome will change the way we travel for years to come
| just like 9/11 has.
| sharken wrote:
| I guess we have to accept the fact that when Russia or China is
| involved, then we cannot find the truth. The same can even be
| said of the US.
|
| The 1977 H1N1 spread was never truly explained, here a possible
| lab incident in Russia was one of the possibilities:
|
| https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.01013-15?permanent...
|
| The Coronavirus from Wuhan, China has a similar story, only
| this time it is in China.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
|
| To me a solid scientific explanation is still useful, e.g. the
| intimate study of the Wuhan lab into Coronavirus seems risky at
| best.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| It's clearly too virulent to contain as is evident nearly 2
| years later.
|
| Yes it matters. If China (and other orgs) are responsible they
| should be held criminally and civilly liable. Millions have
| died on account of what appears to have been reckless and
| dangerous gain of function research. If there's no
| accountability, it will happen again.
| mnd999 wrote:
| How are you going to do that then? Without a painful
| rethinking of the world economy, China does what it pleases.
| That's the realpolitik.
| logicchains wrote:
| The US could start by not funding gain of function research
| in China..
| secondcoming wrote:
| The world economy is already being re-thought. The pain has
| started.
| zarzavat wrote:
| In the UK we quarantined all people coming in from Wuhan, while
| flights from Chinese cities outside of Wuhan continued to run
| without restriction, even though it was known that the virus
| was there too.
|
| There was a lot of wishful thinking and denialism back in
| January/February 2020.
|
| The only country that got the initial response right was North
| Korea, they shut all their borders, and were mocked for it too.
| makomk wrote:
| It's reasonably plausible that what doomed efforts to keep
| Covid out of the UK (and the US too!) was travel from Italy,
| not China. Both countries had pretty decent contact tracing
| for cases linked to China and those people didn't spread it
| much, the initial outbreak cities of London and New York had
| substantial travel to the worst-affected region of Italy due
| to Fashion Week, and the first exported case from the UK
| detected in I think Singapore had direct ties to that.
|
| Also, something definitely seems to have gone seriously wrong
| with Italy's response - they were detecting zero cases up
| until way too soon before their hospitals collapsed, which
| suggests they were doing a worse job of testing people
| hospitalized with potential Covid symptoms than even the US
| which had screwed up so badly it had an official policy of
| not doing so due to test shortages. Trouble is, Italy is
| currently run by the kind of technocrats the media likes, so
| there was no incentive to drag them through the mud. Instead
| the press spun other countries as worse because they weren't
| caught by surprise like Italy and so should've done better,
| without asking questions about how that surprise happened
| exactly.
| krona wrote:
| Japan closed its borders 3 weeks before North Korea. Several
| other countries too. I suppose one difference between North
| Korea and Japan is Japan allowed residents to return, however
| that's unlikely to be an issue for North Korea, given
| residents aren't allowed to leave in the first place.
| cwp wrote:
| This is stupid. You can't debate facts. Either SARS-CoV-2 escaped
| from a lab, or it didn't. Unless somebody comes forward to say,
| "Yeah, I tore my glove while transporting some test tubes and I
| got sick two days later," we're never going to know for sure.
|
| The only sensible thing to do is assume that it's at least
| possible that it was a lab leak and reevaluate the risk-benefit
| tradeoff of this type of research. _That_ is a debate worth
| having. The rest is just posturing.
| Thorentis wrote:
| The issue they are addressing, is that some people assert a
| natural origin of COVID-19 as fact, when in fact as shown in
| this article, there is no evidence to support it.
|
| So in one sense you're right, we can only debate the likelihood
| of finding facts to support the theory of lab leak vs natural
| origin right now. The aim of this paper is to _encourage_ that
| debate rather than try to silence it, the way the natural
| origin proponents seem to want to do.
| cwp wrote:
| I understand all that. My point is that "debate" is about
| persuading people to hold your point of view, while this is a
| question of fact. You can't change a fact no matter how
| persuasive you are, because facts aren't subject to debate.
|
| Now, in this case, the fact is hidden from us. SARS-CoV-2 had
| a natural origin or it didn't, but we don't have enough
| evidence to decide that question either way. In the absence
| of evidence, people are using prejudice to decide what is
| true, and trying to persuade others to adopt their
| prejudices. That is utter folly.
|
| What we should do is give up on trying to establish the facts
| unless and until new evidence emerges. Instead, let's admit
| that lab leaks are possible, and regardless of whether it
| happened in this case, it should cause us to reexamine our
| assessment of the risks inherent to this type of virology. We
| have a demonstration of how bad we are at containing
| epidemics, and how damaging even a relatively benign virus
| is. We don't know what a more deadly virus would do, but we
| can safely assume it would be very bad.
|
| Ok, I grant that I was a little harsh on the authors of this
| paper; they're really only saying that the lab leak is
| plausible, and we should examine it seriously. Fine. But I
| still think it's a red herring. Even if we could find patient
| zero and nail down the animal that infected him to
| conclusively prove a natural origin, we should _still_
| revisit our thinking on whether and how to conduct research
| with viruses. That we 're a long way from that sort of
| conclusion makes it all the more important.
| adolph wrote:
| It is stupid. Previous authors published in the Lancet did call
| for suppression of debate and facts. From the first sentence of
| the parent article:
|
| _On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet
| called "Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how
| SARS-CoV-2 reached humans". The letter recapitulates the
| arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by
| the same authors, which claimed overwhelming support for the
| hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19
| pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any
| alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: "We stand
| together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting
| that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin". The statement
| has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate,
| including among science journalists._
|
| The 2/20 letter stated:
|
| _The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this
| outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation
| around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn
| conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a
| natural origin._
|
| These are the scientists who wanted to deny facts: Charles
| Calisher, Dennis Carroll, Rita Colwell, Ronald B Corley, Peter
| Daszak, Christian Drosten, Luis Enjuanes, Jeremy Farrar, Hume
| Field, Josie Golding, Alexander Gorbalenya, Bart Haagmans,
| James M Hughes, William B Karesh, Gerald T Keusch, Sai Kit Lam,
| Juan Lubroth, John S Mackenzie, Larry Madoff, Jonna Mazet,
| Peter Palese, Stanley Perlman, Leo Poon, Bernard Roizman, Linda
| Saif, Kanta Subbarao, Mike Turner
|
| The above statement may sound mild-mannered to a lay person but
| it had greater import and effect, as outlined by this BMJ
| article, "The covid-19 lab leak hypothesis: did the media fall
| victim to a misinformation campaign?"
| [https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1656]
|
| _Scientists and reporters contacted by The BMJ say that
| objective consideration of covid-19's origins went awry early
| in the pandemic, as researchers who were funded to study
| viruses with pandemic potential launched a campaign labelling
| the lab leak hypothesis as a "conspiracy theory."_
|
| _A leader in this campaign has been Peter Daszak, president of
| EcoHealth Alliance, a non-profit organisation given millions of
| dollars in grants by the US federal government to research
| viruses for pandemic preparedness.1 Over the years EcoHealth
| Alliance has subcontracted out its federally supported research
| to various scientists and groups, including around $600 000
| (PS434 000; EUR504 000) to the Wuhan Institute of Virology._
|
| _Shortly after the pandemic began, Daszak effectively silenced
| debate over the possibility of a lab leak with a February 2020
| statement in the Lancet. "We stand together to strongly condemn
| conspiracy theories suggesting that covid-19 does not have a
| natural origin," said the letter, which listed Daszak as one of
| 27 coauthors. Daszak did not respond to repeated requests for
| comment from The BMJ._
| bigbluedots wrote:
| An objective, open, transparent debate seems to be no longer
| possible these days. Maybe it never has been.
| okay475008 wrote:
| ycombinator is now being used as the cia's psyop grounds for
| disinformation programs. We're really running out of sincere
| internet discussion boards, now.
| bigbluedots wrote:
| Do you really believe that junk?
| sharken wrote:
| I think you seriously underestimating this site.
| athrowaway3z wrote:
| It seems to me the consensus has been on "it's plausible" for a
| while now.
|
| However, sometimes i see people paint a picture where experts are
| categorically denying the possibility, and i don't understand the
| field well enough to be sure one way or another.
|
| What would be the minimum necessary steps to create something
| like Covid-19?
|
| Corollary: If i mix 100 different natural strains together with a
| couple dozen CRISPR cutters at random, and inject it into a
| human. What are the chances of a permutation to be
| infections/dangerous, and transmissible between humans?
| djkivi wrote:
| Who controls the past controls the future?
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/16/tom-cotto...
| yomly wrote:
| I was thinking about this the other day. Suppose it is true and
| there was a leak, given the current balance of the world it would
| probably lead to WW3.
|
| I am happy not knowing the truth if my hunch proves right.
| dreen wrote:
| It's well known that local Chinese authorities silenced a doctor
| (Li Wenliang) who was giving early warnings about the virus. That
| to me is a more grave mistake than an accidental lab leak,
| because they lost a chance to nip it in the bud. Accidents happen
| and quick response is essential.
|
| An intentional lab leak makes no sense to me at all. Its like
| starting a fire in your house to spite your neighbour.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| > An intentional lab leak makes no sense to me at all. Its like
| starting a fire in your house to spite your neighbour.
|
| Just playing the devil's advocate here, but, I'd argue that it
| makes quite a lot of sense from a biological warfare
| perspective in terms of intelligence gathering on how different
| societies and countries behave against such a threat.
|
| In particular, the pandemic has brought to the surface the how
| large schism between the two parties in the US, the constant
| politicization of science and nearly every other topic, the
| vast differences in perspective of different groups of the
| population, and provided information on the outcomes of
| different measures in different cultural landscapes, the level
| of preparation of different countries, the time it takes to
| figure out the correct response, and the responses of the
| people in guideline changes.
|
| It has also shown that a well prepared, _authoritarian_
| country, with mRNA vaccines in the works can incur very minimal
| losses in terms of population due to swift vaccine rollout,
| hard lock-downs and strict measures.
|
| China's losses compared to say UK, US, India, Russia and others
| have been very small if the data they have actually provided
| are to be believed.
|
| But all of this is pure speculation from a random netizen so
| take it with huge grains of salt.
| newsclues wrote:
| Or COVID was leaked into the public in China by an actor
| other than China.
|
| China figured it out and unleashed a global pandemic by
| opening the borders to not be a victim of day the CIA.
|
| It's possible it's intentionally leaked but not by China
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Is HN unable to entertain opposing views or hypothetical
| scenarios without resorting to downvoting?
| asxd wrote:
| What you're proposing seems possible, but without any sort
| of evidence it's hard to see it as anything other than FUD.
|
| That being said, you're absolutely right that the virus has
| generated all this data. What's suspect is whether someone
| created the virus with the intention just to collect that
| data.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Perhaps not necessarily created for this purpose, but
| assuming it leaked, and information about the lethality
| and transmissibility was known in models, it doesn't seem
| implausible that the approach of CCP didn't change as the
| events unfolded.
|
| I didn't mean to spread FUD, I stated from the beginning
| that it was just a hypothetical scenario, and we should
| be making hypothetical scenarios to see how events unfold
| over time, if we can't have these discussions, then are
| we doing anything but regurgitating information?
| dreen wrote:
| If that indeed was a master plan then Id argue it backfired
| massively, that information is not worth the losses and the
| risks, and is exactly why modern armies don't deploy
| biological or chemical weapons or zeppelins (because they are
| hard to control and are not effective against armies).
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Could you expand why it backfired massively?
| dreen wrote:
| I did in the next part of the sentence, because the cost
| of that information was too big, even for China
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Could you elaborate exactly on what that cost was?
| Credibility? Deaths? Economic?
| dreen wrote:
| What I'm saying is I think the risk itself is cost enough
| for them not to do it. Add whatever the losses are or we
| believe they are on top of that.
| PeterisP wrote:
| I disagree; although I have no reason to assume that this
| was intentional, I can certainly imagine that looking
| back at what happened, many military planners would
| consider the current cost of Covid-19 to China as
| completely reasonable if it meaningfully changes e.g.
| ww3. Taking their stats at face value, <5000 deaths in
| China is something appropriate for a small conflict, and
| the economic cost is zero if your competitors bear the
| same cost or even a benefit if your competitors fare
| worse, which arguably happened.
|
| It would take some years until we properly see the
| consequences, but I wouldn't be surprised if afterwards
| historians would note Covid-19 as a factor that
| _benefited_ China in their long term competition w. "the
| west", not as a cost.
|
| Like, 5k deaths is something that I wouldn't approve of
| for almost any reason, but looking back at documented
| 20th century history, planners (both in China and
| elsewhere) were clearly willing to pay such and even much
| higher costs for reasons of global politics/power play,
| so the mere existence of such a cost by itself certainly
| does _not_ mean that it 's implausible that someone would
| intentionally order a thing like that.
| null_object wrote:
| > An intentional lab leak makes no sense to me at all. Its like
| starting a fire in your house to spite your neighbour
|
| But isn't this precisely the strawman argument that's
| effectively destroyed rational discussion about the lab-leak
| scenario?
|
| As far as I know, absolutely no rational scientist has
| suggested the intentional 'bio-weapon' release of the virus on
| China's own population as a realistic scenario, in any way.
|
| But I've found whenever discussing an accidental leak with
| people who oppose it, they almost invariably use this as their
| main argument rejecting it: "why would the Chinese use this
| weapon against themselves?"
|
| It seems just another example of the debate being clouded by a
| politicization that isn't even there.
| dreen wrote:
| I didnt oppose accidental leak possibility. My main argument
| was that restricting the flow of information has caused (or
| rather may have caused as @simonh rightly pointed out) the
| accident to be worse than it could have been.
|
| Perhaps including the second part you quoted wasnt necessary
| for my point, but if you think that makes my post politically
| motivated then Im afraid its only because you choose to see
| it that way.
| [deleted]
| dkersten wrote:
| > An intentional lab leak makes no sense to me at all.
|
| Very few people are arguing that it was intentional. I agree
| that an intentional lab leak is highly, highly unlikely, but I
| think an accidental lab leak is at least just as likely as the
| wet market hypothesis and CCP certainly acted extremely
| suspicious.
| [deleted]
| sneak wrote:
| Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
|
| All major world governments do illegal and shady acts when
| faced with situations that may result in the need for extreme
| ass-covering. (cf. "righteous strike")
|
| If it were an accidental lab leak: so what? How does that
| change things? If anything, it would accelerate a
| {trade,cold,cyber,shooting} war with China, which is
| universally a bad thing, even in pursuit of justice for
| something that was likely accidental (if indeed it came from
| a lab, which is presently undefined/unknown to the public).
| fighterpilot wrote:
| > If it were an accidental lab leak: so what?
|
| > pursuit of justice
|
| It has nothing to do with a pursuit of justice, at least
| not for me. It's about understanding where the disease came
| from and how it jumped to humans, so that we have a better
| shot at stopping something like this happening again.
| sneak wrote:
| I suppose a better question in that case would be: is it
| possible to engineer something like SARS-CoV-2 in a lab
| (perhaps via existing GOF techniques) if it were one's
| explicit intent to cause a damaging pandemic?
|
| That's a more important question about whether or not
| this particular virus came out of a lab or not, because,
| if the answer to the above is "yes", then we need to take
| whatever your/whoever's proposed mitigation/prevention
| steps even if this thing came about via natural pathways.
| Even banning GOF research in labs might not be
| sufficient, if malicious people (wooo "bioterrorism")
| could go about doing this outside of labs.
|
| Also, we need to plan and prepare for the next global
| respiratory pandemic in any event, as we know they happen
| periodically regardless of origin. That's true even if we
| never authoritatively understand the origin of this one.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| Your argument is that we should take very stringent
| preventative measures whether or not COVID leaked from a
| lab.
|
| While I agree with that, what this misses is that
| knowledge of _if_ and _how_ the virus escaped is valuable
| knowledge that helps us by showing us where the flaws in
| our current processes are.
|
| Flight safety is a fitting analogy. You need to analyze
| exactly _why_ a plane crashed so that you can see the
| gaps in current safety processes. It is that iteration
| (crash - > analyze -> improve -> crash -> analyze ->
| improve) over many generations that is why flying is so
| safe. Without this, it's armchair theory and you are not
| left with a system that is robust to the real world.
| sneak wrote:
| How is it valuable?
|
| If it _could_ be made in a lab and released
| (intentionally or accidentally), another could be made in
| a lab and released (intentionally), and our strategy
| should be _exactly the same_ even if SARS-CoV-2 is of
| entirely natural origin, as the entire planet now knows
| the destructive value of this class of bioweapons (if
| constructing such artificially is within our technology).
|
| The US ban on GOF research suggests that it is believed
| to be technically feasible to achieve this. This means we
| must proceed strategically as a species as if the lab
| leak hypothesis were true, because over time the
| probability of an intentional lab leak approaches 1. The
| origin of this particular pandemic remains irrelevant in
| that case.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| > How is it valuable?
|
| > our strategy should be exactly the same even if SARS-
| CoV-2 is of entirely natural origin
|
| This is still missing the point. The point is that
| studying the details of _how_ it leaked (if it did leak)
| gives you information that you can use to refine safety
| processes. Without these details, you are left with mere
| armchair theorizing about what new procedures are
| necessary and what the flaws are in current procedures.
|
| Read about the history of plane crashes, where the
| details of _how_ planes crashed were used to improve
| flight safety.
|
| https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/g73/12-airplane-
| cras...
|
| - United Airlines 232 "The NTSB later determined the
| accident was caused by a failure by mechanics to detect a
| crack in the fan disk ... The accident led the FAA to
| order modification of the DC-10's hydraulic system and to
| require redundant safety systems in all future aircraft."
|
| - TWA 800 "It was everybody's nightmare: a plane that
| blew up in midair for no apparent reason ... most likely
| after a short circuit in a wire bundle ... The FAA has
| since mandated changes to reduce sparks from faulty
| wiring and other sources."
|
| Now how could such improvements have been made without
| knowing _how_ the plane crashed?
| sneak wrote:
| I think we're talking at cross purposes. (In any case,
| thanks for explaining!) I'm talking about defensive
| measures that a species needs to take to protect itself
| against dangerous respiratory viruses. You're talking
| about security measures that a laboratory needs to take
| to protect the world from the escape of things from
| containment.
|
| While finding out the answer to the latter is
| interesting, I think "a ban on GOF research" is likely
| closer to the answer to the former, which reduces the
| significance of the latter.
|
| We're going to see more of these, whether from SARS-CoV
| mutations, bioterror, or future lab leaks. The large-
| scale changes our society needs to make are identical
| even if we were only facing a subset of these threats (ie
| if lab leaks could be completely eliminated, which is
| what I believe you're talking about).
| tlb wrote:
| I think we need to go beyond fixing whatever lab leak may
| have allowed this virus out this time. We shouldn't have
| humans working in proximity to experimental viruses at
| all. Virus research should be done entirely by robots
| inside sealed containers that are never opened. The bits
| of technology for this all exist, though it'll take some
| integration to make it all work. Anything less risks
| billions of life-years.
| markdown wrote:
| > and CCP certainly acted extremely suspicious.
|
| They would have acted the same regardless of what the initial
| case was caused by. That's just the way they roll.
| dkersten wrote:
| Perhaps. It still paints them in a very untrustworthy light
| though and since some of their actions (actively
| suppressing that covid was even a thing) directly caused
| many deaths, they are definitely guilty, even if not of
| everything.
|
| I'm not saying it proves it was a lab leak, just that I
| don't trust them, so when they say it wasn't, that's rather
| meaningless. And since the WHO weren't allowed to
| investigate for over a year, that they say they didn't find
| any evidence is also meaningless. The fact that the lab
| leak hypothesis kept getting shut down early for less than
| scientific reasons (calling it racist for example) also
| doesn't help building trust.
| PeterisP wrote:
| The initial response to the pandemic would likely be the
| same no matter of the cause; however, the later actions of
| restricting international researcher access to trace the
| possible origins is a bit different issue.
| input_sh wrote:
| Accidental lab leaks happen often and are owned up to. Not
| just in China, everywhere (US, France, Russia, Hungary,
| Sierra Leone, etc): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l
| aboratory_biosecuri...
|
| If you scroll to the bottom of it, China owned up to
| accidentally leaking brucellosis mere months before Covid
| became a thing, sourced by China Daily (CP's English
| website). That's why I don't get the accidental lab leak
| hypothesis. It's inconsistent with previous ones unless you
| make some 4D chess plays in reasoning.
|
| As for suspiciousness, is that action different than in other
| situations, or are we they just behaving like that all the
| time and most of the West is only learning about it now? I'm
| leaning towards the latter.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| I just hope the objective truth prevails whatever it turns
| out to be, regardless of politics the world needs to know in
| detail how pandemics can arise if we want to be more
| effective at preventing them.
| blagie wrote:
| Possibilities:
|
| 1) Natural bat origin
|
| 2) Natural non-bat origin
|
| 3) Originated elsewhere (per above) and broke out in Wuhan
|
| 4) Unintentional lab leak of a natural strain
|
| 5) Unintentional lab leak from GoF research
|
| 6) Unintentional lab leak from bioweapons research
|
| 7) Intentionally released to by the CCP
|
| 8) Intentionally released by internal opponents of the CCP
|
| 9) Intentionally released by external opponents of China
|
| 10) ... and so on
|
| I can come up with sensical (if not always likely) scenarios
| which fit all of those, and many more.
|
| Most of the scenarios suggest we should be doing much more.
|
| For example:
|
| * If there was an unintentional lab leak of a strain in GoF
| research, China knows things about COVID19 we don't. They took
| extreme measures. It's reasonable to assume they might have had
| some reason.
|
| * If this was a "test" of a bioweapon -- understand China's and
| the world's response -- it's worth treating as a dry run (note
| that this does not necessitate Chinese-run test)
|
| * If this were a bioweapon, we should take long COVID very,
| very seriously, since the best bioweapons are designed to
| cripple rather than to kill.
|
| What's odd to me is that, as far as I know, no one has compiled
| a list, evidence, or implications.
| simonh wrote:
| While silencing Li was appalling, in practice it probably
| didn't slow down recognition and escalation of the issue much
| as there were other doctors already aware of it and raising the
| alarm. Wuhan CDC had been alerted on 27th December, and the WHO
| had been told there was a pneumonia cluster of unknown origin
| on 31st December, 3 days before Li was strong armed.
|
| All the instances of messing up found so far were incompetence
| and bureaucratic bullying. This certainly obstructed the free
| flow of information and delayed effective investigation and
| action though, but there's no real sign of a concerted cover up
| because there were several lines of investigation in the open
| from early on that were never shut down.
| Taniwha wrote:
| But probably the best thing that happened early WAS free flow
| on information from China, they sequenced the genome early
| and released it to everyone, that put the mRNA vaccines on a
| fast track ...
| simonh wrote:
| They heavily curated what info was released, and obstructed
| independent investigations within China, but yes they did
| share some critical information fairly rapidly.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Working closely to the issue on a couple of fronts, I think
| debate about the disease origin is a distraction from the real
| debate everyone has a stake in, which has been the policy
| response and the legitimacy of lockdowns, vax passports, mandates
| for health status disclosure, and discrimination based on health
| information.
|
| Who cares if it came from a lab, there are zero consequences to
| anyone whether it did or not, and it's the least impactful detail
| of what has happened. "Allowing," debate on the disease origin is
| a cynical switcheroo.
| tomohawk wrote:
| The worldwide community is large. We can do many things all at
| the same time. Investigating the source is not a distraction.
|
| We now have documentary evidence that Fauci authorized money to
| be channeled through various organizations to labs in Wuhan.
| These documents also link people involved with this activity to
| the very same people who assured us through letters to a highly
| respected journal that the lab leak theory was completely
| wrong.
|
| This brings to mind many questions, but do people act like this
| when they are not covering things up? This bears investigating.
|
| It's unlikely that the people investigating will be the same
| ones developing new drugs or treatments for covid.
| stormbrew wrote:
| > It's unlikely that the people investigating will be the
| same ones developing new drugs or treatments for covid.
|
| Maybe not, but maybe they should instead be investigating how
| policy failed us so catastrophically around the world _after_
| it escaped its original area.
|
| When the world obsesses over its origin, it seems to be
| blatant deflection over failures at home.
| noptd wrote:
| The parent already addressed this concern:
|
| >The worldwide community is large. We can do many things
| all at the same time. Investigating the source is not a
| distraction.
| stormbrew wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree with the sibling comment about what
| the evils are, exactly, but this is the very thing _I 'm_
| addressing -- that it isn't a _given_ that we 're doing
| multiple things at the same time.
|
| This is a great argument when we're talking about, for
| example, people working on making phones vs. people
| working on cancer research -- their efforts aren't
| interchangeable.
|
| But political capital to examine policy failures? That's
| a limited precious resource that is all too often
| redirected towards frivolous, self-interested pursuits by
| people who are unwilling to examine their own.
|
| China is an easy scapegoat here. You see it all over this
| thread. Many many americans talking about Chinese policy
| while their country pretended nothing was happening for
| months and likely facilitated the virus' travel
| throughout the US and the world as one of the main
| epicenters of travel.
|
| American politicians (as well as others'), as well as the
| beaurocracies under their control, love nothing more than
| people looking at anyone but them when something goes
| wrong and they _will_ take advantage of it.
| motohagiography wrote:
| That's a bromide though, political narrative is serial
| and synchronous, and distractions are designed to run the
| clock and cost time, which normalizes and consolidates
| all the evils that states have exploited in this.
| noptd wrote:
| >Who cares if it came from a lab, there are zero consequences
| to anyone whether it did or not, and it's the least impactful
| detail of what has happened
|
| This is a nonsensical argument for reasons ISL pointed out in
| their reply (among others), and framing the issue as a question
| of origin OR <other important questions> is a false dichotomy -
| they are all important questions worth seeking answers to and
| will inform different aspects of how w respond to, and ideally
| prevent, future pandemics.
| 8note wrote:
| Theoretically it's a false dichotomy, but there are limit
| resources shared between the two, eg. Cooperation with the
| chinese government
| ISL wrote:
| The origin matters for two major reasons:
|
| 1) So we can learn and mitigate the risks of something similar
| happening again.
|
| and
|
| 2) In the event that the virus was leaked from a laboratory,
| the world would like to send the lab a small invoice for costs
| incurred and damages.
| motohagiography wrote:
| So literally, nothing different. Labs are all hypersensitive
| about their processes right now, so they're doing 1) already,
| and the recipient of that invoice is the US NIH, or the CCP,
| neither of whom have either the willingness or ability to
| pay.
|
| It's window dressing, and I'm becoming even more suspicious
| that the disease origin is just another managed narrative, as
| everybody who believes it came from a lab believed it last
| year, and nobody who rejected the lab leak view last year is
| going to have their mind changed to where they accept
| institutions they believe in are culpable.
|
| It's an issue designed to politically neutralize people, so
| that we will be just like people arguing about jet fuel
| burning temperatures on the internet instead of confronting
| our governments about surveillance and state overreach and
| the patriot act. The whole so-called "debate" is a honeypot
| tarpit for useful idiots.
| secondcoming wrote:
| People outside of America are also interested in whether
| this virus came from some guy's bat dinner, or a bio-
| warfare lab.
| gsnedders wrote:
| I think the reasonable question in the lab breakout case is
| "was the risk assessment used to determine the Biohazard
| Safety Level the work in the lab was carried out under
| sufficient, and do we need to change processes to reduce
| the risk of such a breakout in future (e.g., by increasing
| the BSL needed for such work)".
|
| That, to me, is the interesting part of the lab breakout
| case. Are we regularly underestimating the risk of novel
| viruses in research laboratories?
| 8note wrote:
| 2 doesn't sound right. Folks around Wuhan could sue, sure,
| but once you're outside of the locality, countries are
| responsible for their own response. That's why countries have
| border controls - to decide what comes in.
| void_mint wrote:
| This exactly. Millions of people are dying and this post as
| well as various politicians are in the midst of the children's
| argument "He started it!"
| clairity wrote:
| absolutely. the likelihood we'll find absolute proof on the
| origin is about zero, and even if we did, it'd affect research,
| policy, and mediopolitical decisions about zero. it's another
| salvo in the 'culture wars' that zealous surrogates are waging
| to distract us from important issues like ever greater
| consolidation of sociopolitical power and economic resources.
| dogsboywonder wrote:
| The amount of censorship, especially among the qualified
| scientific community in just about every facet of this disease is
| alarming. Even if the origins were accidental or lab-born or
| whatnot, the response has been so politicized worldwide that pure
| science has been largely thrown out the window. Every possibility
| should be analyzed & tested, even if it goes against the
| interests of a ruling party and all parties are guilty of
| exploiting this.
| indy wrote:
| As someone mentioned on Twitter: "When you mix Science with
| Politics you end up with Politics"
| [deleted]
| simonh wrote:
| Anything + Politics = Politics
| Torwald wrote:
| religion + politics = religion (?) eg. Aztec empire
|
| edit: the Aztec empire is an example for this. The religion
| was politically enforced and thus the political system
| became part of the religion.
|
| So the question is, isn't religion a case that refutes the
| parent's hypothessis.
| clairity wrote:
| religion is a way to coalesce and exert power on large
| groups of people. religion _is_ politics.
| arcbyte wrote:
| For very narrow definitions of religion, sure.
| clairity wrote:
| rather a very significant aspect of religion, otherwise
| spirituality would suffice.
| midasuni wrote:
| Anything = politics
| fredgrott wrote:
| Keep In Mind that among he ignorant posting information that is
| transforming coupled to the bio-tech we now have access to puts
| the non-skilled-in-critical thinking to direct harm and death.
|
| In fact YouTube just banned someone for posting self DIY COVID
| vaccines for this reason.
|
| And on top of it we have social platform that aim to cause
| discontent harm to earn profits as their stated goal, FB in
| particular.
|
| ITS not Censorship when are responsible for the things we talk
| about!
|
| Do you post jest about doing a felony? No of course not. is it
| censorship because you exercised responsibility?
|
| Be [precise with wording as those who want a darker future want
| everyone to delve down to non precision as a way to hide their
| own dark intentions.
| kruxigt wrote:
| Nothing compared to censorship about race and intelligence for
| example.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Keep in mind that analyzing and testing every possibility for
| SARS took over a decade. The actual science may well he
| happening, but it's completely overwhelmed by the noise from
| the political backed "science."
|
| Personally, I think we should just quietly let the origin
| research happen and all of the political fervor should be
| immediately leveraged towards preventing any future zoological
| or lab leak pandemics.
| tedjdziuba wrote:
| This is why folks on the right roll their eyes when folks on
| the left say "trust the science!". What it really means is
| "trust the TV", which many people on the right are unwilling to
| do, because the TV spent 4 years calling them all evil racist
| bigots. Why trust someone that hates you?
| SkeuomorphicBee wrote:
| I don't believe it is fair to call what the qualified
| scientific community is doing as "censorship", in fact I would
| go even further and say that calling it as such is purely
| political propaganda.
|
| The scientific community is doing the studies, all the studies,
| every possibility is be analyzed & tested, even the most
| outlandish claims are being thoroughly tested in many many
| scientific studies/trials. Every scientist in any related field
| wants to be the one to find a cure, or find the source, or find
| any other relevant information on this disease (for the career
| advancement, the citations, the bragging rights). That the
| scientific community is correctly trying (and unfortunately
| failing) is to suppress the spread of false and/or misleading
| information that is not supported by the science, like the
| following:
|
| 1. Sensationalist press releases that are not supported by the
| underlying scientific paper.
|
| 2. Press releases propping-up weak new papers/studies that are
| less statistically powerful than the current consensus and
| therefore don't change the consensus.
|
| 3. The general press proping up scientific pre-prints without
| peer review.
| djkivi wrote:
| I don't understand. Some of our most trusted news sources told us
| that a lab origin was debunked.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2020/04/22/841925672/scientists-debunk-l...
| sinyug wrote:
| I have no love lost for China[1], or Russia, or the US, all of
| whom have been duping successive Indian governments for the last
| 75 years for their own gains.[2]
|
| However, _if_ we were to assume that the origins are neither
| natural (wet markets) nor accidental (lab leaks), but deliberate
| action on the part of some state that is _not_ China, I have to
| wonder about the likelihood of this being a botched attempt at
| triggering regime change in China by parts of the US government.
| It was executed perfectly in Egypt and Ukraine over the last
| decade. The extreme measures taken by the CCP that rapidly ended
| transmission within the country perhaps caused the project to
| fail.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932021_China%E2%80%...
|
| [2] _Tawang would have gone to China if Nehru had been left to
| deal with it : Sardar Patel_
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydguwz8lV7k)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-19 23:01 UTC)