[afpx]

This isn't just a random scapegoat. It just happens that the company (Ecohealth Alliance) proposed the gain-of-function research on the virus to DARPA, which was subsequently rejected as being too risky. NIH later funded similar research to the same company for its work in Wuhan during 2020.

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist. But, what are the chances of this being coincidental? The "from the wild" theory doesn't have any evidence either but requires more assumptions. Occam's razor.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Jesus Christ, son of Mary, please don't bring Occam's razor in yet another internet discussion that tramples all over it. There is no reason to assume a lab leak when every disease we know that affects humans is _not_ the result of a lab leak. A natural origin is the most likely explanation and we don't need any other explanation unless there is strong evidence that something different happened, which we absolutely don't.

In fact the "lab leak theory" is exactly anti-science. In the most backwards fashion it starts not with an observation that must be explained with a hypothesis, but with a hypothesis -that the virus escaped from a lab- that is not supported by any observation. Its proponents then try to find evidence to justify their hypothesis. They don't find any, but they keep looking anyway because they are convinced it is true even in the complete absence of evidence. Then they accuse everyone else of hiding the evidence. "A-ha! That's why we can't prove this hypothesis we know is true! Because the evidence has been hidden from us!". This is the pattern of quackery, not science and not scientific hypothesis-making and verification.

[undecisive]

"People whose whole job it is to study bat-based coronaviruses managed to cause a variant which escaped."

"A virus whose whole job it is to mutate and infect mutated and infected people."

I think most reasonably sensible people would consider these to be fairly equal in terms of unlikeliness or simplicity. So yes, Occam's razor does not apply, but not because of your particular bias against one of the options.

> that is not supported by any observation

It's supported by at least 3 observations, which is that a leading virology lab known to manipulate bat-based coronaviruses was less than 30mins drive from the potential wet market source, and that China has a history of covering up controversial facts, and that China did at least their usual amount of hindrance for investigators.

I have absolutely no preference for one theory over the other. Or neither. I have no special evidence, and speculation at this point seems pretty pointless.

And unless you do, telling people they're stupid because of their preference is only going to cement their belief in a coverup. So maybe we should quit screaming at people and just say "you do you".

(Just to clarify: Feel free to work against sinophobia... that's perfectly valid. But again, dismissing critical thought on a topic out of hand does nothing but hand the Sinophobes an own-goal)

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> I have absolutely no preference for one theory over the other. Or neither. I have no special evidence, and speculation at this point seems pretty pointless.

That's a false objectivity. We have very strong prior knowledge that diseases arise naturally, without the need for human intervention. To assume there was human intervention requires accordingly strong evidence, at least as strong as the stength of the prior knowledge.

This is where Occam's razor comes in. We do not need to imagine lab leaks, when a natural origin suffices to explain the pandemic.

Also, the "3 observations" you list are observations used to justify the hypothesis that a lab like happened, not observations that caused the hypothesis to be proposed in the first place. First people assumed there was a lab leak, then they went out to find reasons to support a lab leak. That's putting the cart before the horses. Solid reasoning needs observations to precede a hypothesis, not the other way around.

[undecisive]

This is all utter horse manure.

> We have very strong prior knowledge that diseases arise naturally

Correct. We also have very strong prior knowledge that existing diseases can be manipulated and produced by means of unnatural selection.

We also have strong prior knowledge that this particular lab have done a fair amount of that. With coronaviruses. With bats. 5 minutes with wikipedia would tell you that.

It's a bit like saying "We have very strong prior knowledge that coins can land heads-up, so this coin could never be showing tails".

> not observations that caused the hypothesis to be proposed in the first place

Please cite your sources. Otherwise, you're just showing bias against the people proposing the theory in the first place.

And let's be fair, conspiracy theorists are more often wrong than right, so I understand your distrust of them.

But also let's be fair:

- if it was true that Covid-19 originated in that lab, I don't think anyone is saying "oh no, China would never cover something like this up"

- the geographical coincidence is a compelling coincidence.

> Solid reasoning needs observations to precede a hypothesis, not the other way around.

This is dodgy ground, and shows a serious misunderstanding of the applicability - and even the process - of the scientific method. Observations like "viruses rarely jump between species like this" and "virology labs can produce viruses" are valid outcomes of pre-hypothesis research. Tests such as "If the WHO try to investigate, the Chinese government will attempt to restrict investigators" might be problematic (write it up in your analysis!), but are nonetheless valid. There are very few easily measured predictions in this.

If you want to go scientific method on this, by all means share your hypotheses and tests. "Lots of clever people have said this" or "I trust this source more than that source" is not a valid test when the waters are so muddied.

So no, this is not false objectivity at all. This is your opinion masquerading as fact. In all the data gathering I've done, I've seen nothing to compel me to take one opinion over another. If you want to actually try, using real arguments, please feel free.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> This is all utter horse manure.

That's great to know. Thank you for your kind and dignified contribution.

[undecisive]

Any time.

I will point out though, I would rather be undignified and call out bad arguments, than saying it takes a "certain type of person" to show bad arguments.

Prove me wrong. Show me the arguments that actually do make sense. I'd love to have a good reason not to sit on the fence, these spikes ain't doing my piles any good.

But quite frankly, my dignity doesn't care.

[cade]

One of the more amusing versions of, "I may be mistaken on some points and need to reconsider" that I've read in a while...

[afpx]

A scientist parks her car under a tree, everyday. Occasionally, branches fall off and scratch her car. Today, she goes outside and sees that her window is smashed. She looks around to find the branch that smashed her window but can't find it. She notices some kids playing baseball nearby. They look guilty. However, scientist rules that the window was broken by a branch because strong prior knowledge.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> However, scientist rules that the window was broken by a branch because strong prior knowledge.

Prior knowledge doesn't stop you from forming new hypotheses, otherwise we wouldn't be going anywhere. The way it works is, you make an observation, you form a hypothesis to explain the observations based on prior knowledge and then you test your hypothesis with new observations. Ideally you look for observations that allow you to refute your hypothesis (because refutation is more secure than positive proof). If you can't find evidence to refute your hypothesis, you adopt it, provisionally, until such time as you have sufficient evidence to support it with good certainty, or until you have found evidence against it.

In your example, the initial observation is the broken window. The prior knowledge is that branches keep falling off and scratching the car. The hypothesis is that a branch fell and broke the car window. The second observation that tests the hypothesis is that there is no fallen branch around the car. This observation refutes the hypothesis. Then the scientist is free to go looking for additional observations and form a new hypothesis: the kids playing baseball nearby are the new observation. The next hypothesis is that they broke the window.

This process actually works very well in most situations where we have uncertainty and need an explanation, be it in the sciences or everyday world. I think you assume it's just some idealised version of "science" in the broad, but it's actually the most solid form of empirical reasoning we know of.

[hypnotortoise]

If an offender removes key elements from your observation (or in the example adding a branch beside the scientists car) you will not even consider to form a new hypothesis? That's quite convenient for those kids.

[afpx]

Scientists must do a better job of explaining how natural origin is the likely explanation, then. Otherwise, a lot of smart and educated people are going to put the wrong dots together.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

The natural origin is the default explanation and nobody needs to have an IQ of 130 and a degree in biology to figure that out. It suffices to know that diseases are a natural thing. Most people who have gone to school will know that already.

It really hurts me that you believe "smart and educated people" believe that nonsense. Everytime anyone with any relevant education has commented on HN it's to say that "lab leak" is rubbish. And let me not get started on how people on HN think they're smart because they're on HN where people think they're smart.

[afpx]

Do you really think that most people will buy that given that we haven't had a similar pandemic in 100 years?

Also, if you're going to appeal to authority, please link to the HN comments that explain how "lab leak" explanations are rubbish. I'm more than happy to read them. In my opinion, we don't have nearly enough information to make such a decision, one way or the other.

[nradov]

The last major coronavirus pandemic probably started about 133 years ago.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/

Since then both SARS-CoV and MERS jumped from animals to humans. They caused smaller outbreaks rather than worldwide pandemics. There was no suspicion of a lab leak origin for those viruses.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> Do you really think that most people will buy that given that we haven't had a similar pandemic in 100 years?

Sure we have. Off the top of my head: AIDS, Ebola, CJD, SARS and MERS and H1N1. In fact people thought that AIDS was a US bioweapon that got loose. Or something. Pandemics make people believe all sorts of weird things.

>> Also, if you're going to appeal to authority, please link to the HN comments that explain how "lab leak" explanations are rubbish. I'm more than happy to read them.

See OP, for instance.

[afpx]

The OP barely provided any information. Mainly they claimed authority on the issue and ruled it closed.

It's also interesting how you continue to imply that I'm uneducated, dumb, etc. That's a great way to shut down a dialogue.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Where did I imply you're uneducated or dumb?

[varjag]

Why is that a default explanation when you have no natural carrier habitats at the ground zero, but you do have a virology lab there?

[YeGoblynQueenne]

There's no "when". A natural origin is the default explanation. To look for a different explanation you need to have a reason to look for a different explanation.

The existence of a virology lab in the state where the pandemic began is no such reason. Rather, it is a post-facto attempt at making observations supporting an a-priori hypothesis.

[varjag]

Not just "in the state" but in minutes distance from first cases. Plenty of reason to look into, it's not like every urban centre has virology labs studying the titular disease.

[marcosdumay]

> But, what are the chances of this being coincidental?

Enormous. The odds are heavily on the side of this being a coincidence.

What are the odds of, if this was a leak, the leak coming from that single research line? It's basically 1 divided by the number of experiments running on the lab. And that's assuming it was a leak, if you estimate the odds of it being a leak, you will at a minimum halve that number.

[afpx]

Why would there be a ban on this type of research, in the US, since 2014?

https://osp.od.nih.gov/biotechnology/gain-of-function-resear...

[dalmo3]

> 1 divided by the number of experiments running on the lab

That would only make sense if you knew there was a leak but didn't know which virus was leaked.

Since we already have the knowledge of what virus (supposedly) leaked, the odds are (1/number of labs experimenting with that virus).

[marcosdumay]

Yes, but isn't that lab the place to go for researching coronavirus? Dividing the odds through all experiments may underestimate it, but it's not very far.