[deadite]

April last year, when this whole thing hit, we had people under throwaway accounts including myself speaking about this on HN, and as expected we hit a roadblock because anecdotes aren't data and whatever, so we were downvoted, called conspiracy theorists and other nonsense. There's ultimately nothing for any of us to gain in lying that we've been asked, by our doctors, going back to October of 2019, whether or not we've been to Wuhan (asked specifically and point blank).

There's a lot more that we know than we are willing to share because HN just isn't a good platform for this sort of discussion anymore. It's too politicized and too many bruised, sensitive egos that can't handle contrary thinking. So for the rest of you, you'll have to get used to constantly having to shift and re-evaluate what you think you "know" and how you feel about a certain thing today, and the kind of statements and comments you've made in the past based on events that you think did or did not happen (because you've been told, and you believe what you're being told by the big media) when, in fact, it may turn out that the "truth" was factually incorrect or hidden from you to begin with.

Take it however you may, just please don't shoot the messenger.

[nenaan]

Nytimes had articles on it in late dec 2019, and january 2020. April 2020 is months past my states emergency orders.

[deadite]

I agree. But people seemed to not be able to entertain the thought that doctors were aware something was happening back in October. In their minds, I think, if the big media did not have an article on it, then it doesn't exist. This is a grievous state of affairs for discussions, because it means NYT and others are effectively the Ministry of Truth for HN.

[elorant]

Dude, it's one thing sharing your experience, and a whole different to assume that doctors knew and are hiding something. Just because there were scattered cases here and there doesn't mean that the medical community could correlate them all and understand what they were dealing with.

[tolbish]

Here is an example of a thread where we all knew for a fact that the virus could not have spread as early as it did:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23459963

[seoaeu]

Wait, what evidence is there that the virus was spreading in August 2019? From a quick Google search, this source [0] published not long ago claims they think earliest it could possibly have been was mid-October of 2019.

[0]: https://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2021-03-18-novel...

[tolbish]

It spread in the fall of 2019, which is late September, October, November, and December. That would put it in line with spreading in the US in December.

[javagram]

Hey, that’s my post :-D I think it still holds up. The virus being “present” in the US in December isn’t the same as being spread widely.

This new NIH survey still offers no reason to doubt the timeline that the virus emerged around October 2019 in Wuhan and only became a serious threat in late November/December, when hospitalizations began to rise and some doctors started warning of a SARS re-emergence. A widespread COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan during August 2019 continues to seem unlikely to me.

[Gibbon1]

What I remember was people arguing that it was present earlier where also making the argument that infection was widespread. And thus the case fatality ratio was 100 times lower than the 0.7% the Chinese were reporting.

[deadite]

Reminds me of this, which is a comically recurring thing on HN:

https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...

[qmmmur]

You sound kind of bruised with a big ego?

[guscost]

Same with anyone who was saying “it’s airborne” or “the case fatality rate is inflated” or “it could have leaked from that lab”.

And now, behold as the intellectual class attempts to delete these mistakes from our collective memory.

[avs733]

no one is deleteing anything...they are simply learning, as science does, and noting that prior knowledge was incorrect.

That is fundamentally different from people screaming without evidence. A broken clock is right twice a day, but it is not an accurate clock at any point.

[vadansky]

I'm sorry no, this is not "they are simply learning, as science does"

People were against this emotionally since Trump suggested it first and no one wanted to be seen agreeing with him on something, even though a broken clock can be right twice a day

[toast0]

> People were against this emotionally since Trump suggested it first and no one wanted to be seen agreeing with him on something, even though a broken clock can be right twice a day

Trump wanted to use some inappropriate names for the disease and wanted to ban travel for people holding PRC passports. Neither of those things make sense to do from a disease control standpoint. If you wanted to ban travel for people who had been in the area of exposure, that might make sense, but nation of passport isn't the way; and after not a whole lot of time, the disease had spread widely enough that there weren't really many places that should have been whitelisted.

[throwawaysea]

We very regularly associate things with their origin. We did so almost this entire last year when we talked about variants of COVID-19. And in the early days of COVID-19, in China, in their airports, the virus was called "Wuhan virus" on signage. Those names were also used in news reports regularly. I agree that something like "kung flu" is inappropriate, but I don't agree that "China virus" or "Wuhan virus" are inappropriate, and don't think they were controversial until they were deemed as such for what seems like political reasons.

> wanted to ban travel for people holding PRC passports

Banning by passport makes some sense. We can't prevent US citizens from returning to their homes. But we can prevent others from traveling to the US. It might make sense to ban all passports except the US for flights originating from China, but then you end up dragging in connecting flights through China from other countries. In terms of a quick, easy to implement measure, that will at least reduce the number of imported cases, banning travel based on PRC passports seems logical.

> the disease had spread widely enough that there weren't really many places that should have been whitelisted

Surely, given that we do care about just controlling the numbers even if it is not perfect (like with "flatten the curve"), it makes some sense to focus on the epicenter.

[jcranmer]

> We can't prevent US citizens from returning to their homes.

SCOTUS has ruled that the US does have quarantine powers for medical emergencies, even for its own citizens. Maybe a complete ban if poorly orchestrated might run afoul of the Constitution, but a policy like "all travelers [US citizen or not] from X region must present at <specific port of entry>, whereupon they will be transferred to a quarantine facility for 14 days" would totally be fine. Note, for example, the way that the quarantine on dogs because of rabies is being handled.

> But we can prevent others from traveling to the US. It might make sense to ban all passports except the US for flights originating from China, but then you end up dragging in connecting flights through China from other countries.

Why should you exempt people whose only presence was via connecting flights? This generally involves long layovers inside of airports, where a large enough fraction is potentially susceptible to already be concerned about (due to local people making their flights), and you're likely to be spending a decent period of time on the plane with such people as well, too.

[guscost]

In my opinion you are completely right, but calling this out makes a lot of people very mad.

[avs733]

I'm not mad, I just have been taught that retcon'ing evidence to fit a narrative is not the same thing as science. It doesn't matter how well it fits or evidence, it should be rejected because the base structure of the argument fails.

These people aren't 'right' in the sense that they figured something out, they screamed about something without evidence.

Whatever happens next cannot change that fact. Its notable that what is happening is the evidence is getting constantly substituted to fit an explanation not the explanation emerging from the available evidence.

It's the boy who cried wolf...

[whydoibother]

Stop trying to tie it to your politics. Some people want real evidence before they scream about things like you do. It had little to do with Trump.

[vadansky]

Wrong because the alternative had no real evidence either.

[throwawaysea]

It absolutely had everything to do with Trump. He was slated to be the clear winner until two events (COVID-19 and George Floyd) presented political opportunities. In an election year, everything becomes about the election. People wanted to attack Trump at every turn, even when he suggested reasonable measures like controlling travel, and equally they wanted to ensure all blame was directed at Trump rather than the Chinese government or state governments or elsewhere.

To address your claim more directly, there was never any justification to dismiss the lab leak theory, or claim it was debunked (as many news outlets did), or censor conversations about it online. This isn't about believing it is the only possibility, but that it is a likely possibility that deserves serious attention. The reason it was instead cloaked in dogmatic terms like "conspiracy theory" and shutdown outright, is purely because of politics. There was no "real evidence" to dismiss it as it was. And guess what - that dismissal also allowed the Chinese government to avoid a site visit for months, and even when the WHO visit happened, it was under the terms of the Chinese government with an untrustworthy outcome. Those who shutdown the lab leak theory and other such claims aren't interested in evidence. They're interested in political opportunism.

[whydoibother]

> there was never any justification to dismiss the lab leak theory

that isn't how this works. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. there is zero evidence of a lab leak besides circumstantial.

> censor conversations about it online

they did a poor job of that then, considering all the very vocal people I had to hear keep talking about it for the last year.

>He was slated to be the clear winner until two events (COVID-19 and George Floyd)

weird how that works, huh? when you handle crises poorly -- or downright negligently -- people will hate you and not vote for you. strange.

[avs733]

I would argue, philosophically, the broken clock isn't right twice a day. That clock is simply saying the same thing as people who are right. It's claim about what time it is has no credibility.

I have a friend who's Toddler knows that things have colors but only knows one color - Blue. If the child calls everything Blue it isn't showing understanding of the concept, even if the kid responds 'Blue' when asked what color the sky is. To claim that is 'right' is projecting my beliefs and knowledge onto the childs.

[guscost]

It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and note the word “attempts”. This one is much too big/high profile to delete, thankfully.

The “this is just how to do science” defense is cute, but a lot people died and will die over it, and in general the conduct we have seen from formerly-trusted authorities is inexcusable. Most people are not going to let that gang of narrow-minded bullies “do science” to them ever again.

[avs733]

a gang of narrow minded bullies?

This is what we are calling the field that ended polio and smallpox.

[guscost]

Sure it is still the same field, but far too many “experts” today are charlatans operating on inherited credibility, in all the fields.

[whydoibother]

Case fatality rate wasn't inflated, it was deflated if anything.

And there is still no real evidence of a lab leak, despite western intelligence continually lying about it.