[d23]

Where to even begin with this. I'm unfairly biased because I misread what he said? After re-reading, I can see that he may not have been making the point I thought he was making. I'd argue he should make a point like that more clear, but fine, it's on me that I misinterpreted.

> the hysteria on HN is ridiculous.

"Hysteria"? How do you get hysteria from my response? Because I asked for citations for what I thought was an extreme claim?

> At least read the damn thing

I did. Reading it was a pre-requisite for posting my response, which cited specific links he included.

> and try to be objective about it.

Asking for high quality sources was my attempt to be objective.

--

Edit: Actually, you know what, I take it back. If you write a sentence like this, it's on you if it's misinterpreted:

"For example, we know that the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021."

Heck, I'm not even sure it wasn't the author's intent at this point.

[zzt123]

"For example, we know that the delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 leaked out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021." - is exactly (mechanically) true in that Delta did leak out of a lab in Taiwan in late 2021.

This statement does not declare that Delta’s origins were a lab leak, since late 2021 is a year after Delta was first detected in late 2020. Can’t have your origins in the future until time travel is invented.

Seems therefore more proper to interpret the statement exactly as written rather than add additional conspiratorial inferences.

[kreetx]

Perhaps the audience for that blog isn't the regular hn reader because I read it the same way as d23. I get that an origin leak can't come after delta was already spreading but most of us aren't drawing a timeline on the side while reading either.

[tshaddox]

It’s also abundantly clear if you’re reading the whole article from the start, because the whole article is claiming Omicron is the second virus to originate from a lab, after the original strain.

[flush]

FWIW, I read it incorrectly the first time too and had to do a double-take. I do think it's not written in the clearest manner.

[dljones]

Yes, s/he clarified it. "[Edited, 5 Jan 2021, to add: Many people have been confused about the statement about delta, so I must have worded it poorly. I’m not saying delta originated in a lab leak. I’m saying delta escaped from a lab late in 2021 where it was being used in research. It’s an example of a research-related lab leak.]"

[mike00632]

Can you explain the Delta variant lab leak theory for those of us who aren't caught up on conspiracy theories?

[zzt123]

I don’t know the details of the Delta conspiracy theory, but the evolution of Delta looks abundantly natural, so whatever that theory is, seems unlikely.

[kelnos]

I do see why you could have misunderstood that statement, but I at least understood it correctly on my first read, and didn't think anything more of it (except that I hadn't known about this particular leak before, and thought that was interesting) until reading your comment here.

So while I can see why you might have found that confusing, I also think the author could have believed the wording wasn't confusing, and is innocent of any accusations of bad intent. I think that's where the "hysteria" accusation comes from (though I agree that's a bit out of line): you seem pretty adamant about painting the author with a bad-faith brush, even after your misunderstanding was corrected. That's not ok either; just admit that you misunderstood and overreacted, and move on.

I'm not sure I buy this omicron lab leak theory, though I do think there may be better (if incredibly circumstantial) evidence for this than for the original virus being a lab leak from Wuhan. Under the assumption that the author is wrong, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that the argument is sincere, if flawed.

[alexvoda]

I agree that phrasing it like that invites misinterpretation.

And when publishing on a subject with as much disinformation as this, it is your duty to be as clear and precise as possible in order to avoid misinterpretations and being misquoted.

This article indeed does not make any direct claim, it is just speculating, but expect to see a wave of disinformation from the usual offenders soon, linking to this and afterwards to eachother.