Thread

1. robmusial · 1791169542 · focus · HN ↗

   I literally just finished Annie Jacobsen's book 'Biological War: A Scenario' last week where the central plot point is an accidental release of modified form of pneumonic plague from a lab in Siberia. Very coincidental timing, especially since it made me wonder how often labs like these have accidents and we never hear about them because it is cleaned up without issue.

   1. petcat · 1791170758 · focus · HN ↗

      > made me wonder how often labs like these have accidents and we never hear about them because it is cleaned up without issue.

      Did anyone ever confirm if the lab in Wuhan China was the originator of COVID? I remember that was a rumor but never heard if there was anything to it.

      1. shlant · 1791183983 · focus · HN ↗

         almost nobody who understands the science and how viruses spread gives more credence to the lab leak theory over a zoonotic source. There are huge leaps of faith required by the lab leak theory that don't hold up against slight scrutiny. People will get into the weeds about "furin cleavage sites" etc. when none of that argumentation is necessary to determine the most likely source.

         1. mike_hearn · 1791188215 · focus · HN ↗

            Quite the opposite. We have the Slack chat logs where virologists themselves say things like "it's so friggin likely it came from the lab", even after they published a paper claiming it was absolutely of natural origin. They were lying and knew they were lying, and the entirety of academia went along with it because they didn't want to take the blame for COVID or risk the funding that Fauci controlled.

            Even Fauci himself kept a private diary where he wrote, "now we know the wet market was not the source, it was an amplifier" - while telling the public the opposite.

            The evidence it came from the Wuhan lab is overwhelmingly strong to the extent that anyone who believes otherwise should be suspected of motivated reasoning. It's not just one line of evidence or inference, it's dozens. The only people I've met who still cling to the idea it wasn't a man-made pandemic tend to be people who work in public sector science themselves.

            1. Hikikomori · 1791192854 · focus · HN ↗

               >"it's so friggin likely it came from the lab", even after they published a paper

               This particular was over a month before it was published, who's lying again? But this is discussions between colleagues as new evidence was coming in. If the investigation was tilted in the direction of the wet market we would have seen evidence of that, instead we see different people having different opinions on early and incomplete evidence and eventually coming to an agreement on what is more likely based on evidence they had at the end.

               >"now we know the wet market was not the source, it was an amplifier"

               Doesn't exclude that it was from natural origin. Amplifier meaning where it entered the human population and started spreading widely.

               > The evidence it came from the Wuhan lab is overwhelmingly strong

               There is a lot of conjecture for the lab leak theory, no real evidence. Meanwhile there's plenty of actual evidence that points to the wet market, such as the initial spread was clustered around the market.

               >to the extent that anyone who believes otherwise should be suspected of motivated reasoning.

               This sentence alone is rather telling...

               1. Gareth321 · 1791197085 · focus · HN ↗

                  I am not the user you responded to, but you are making a fairly egregious logical error. China is an authoritarian, autocratic state. It will never permit any incriminating evidence to surface. Arguing that hard scientific evidence is required for us to come to any conclusions is a de facto rejection of any scenario in which China, its provinces, or any individuals are culpable of anything. Ever. This is much closer to an ideological position than a logical or evidence-based position.

                  In these situations we rely heavily on intelligence services. For example, the German secret service has assessed an 80-95% probability that it was leaked from a lab in Wuhan and presented a report to then Chancellor Angela Merkel. [The assessment was later leaked and was published in a German Newspaper.](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sueddeutsche.de&#x2F;politik&#x2F;corona-bnd-china-li.3217853?reduced=true" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sueddeutsche.de&#x2F;politik&#x2F;corona-bnd-china-li.3217...) I think the German intelligence services are far better equipped, resourced, and have far wider access to sensitive and privileged data, than either of us.

                  1. Hikikomori · 1791200546 · focus · HN ↗

                     &gt;China is an authoritarian, autocratic state.

                     As opposed to current America?

                     Scientists can still asses information and evidence with that in mind and still say which option is more likely to have happened. Or even say that China has faked evidence if they did so.

                     &gt;In these situations we rely heavily on intelligence services

                     I don&#x27;t think intelligence services are equipped to do this. But if we go by who has the better data, better equipped and resource I would assume that America wins on that, so should we believe them more?

                     <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.dni.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;ODNI&#x2F;documents&#x2F;assessments&#x2F;Report-on-Potential-Links-Between-the-Wuhan-Institute-of-Virology-and-the-Origins-of-COVID-19-20230623.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.dni.gov&#x2F;files&#x2F;ODNI&#x2F;documents&#x2F;assessments&#x2F;Rep...

                     &gt;The National Intelligence Council and four other IC agencies assess that the initial human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was caused by natural exposure to an infected animal that carried SARS-CoV-2 or a close progenitor, a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARSCoV-2

                     1. Gareth321 · 1791201637 · focus · HN ↗

                        &gt; Scientists can still asses information and evidence with that in mind and still say which option is more likely to have happened. Or even say that China has faked evidence if they did so.

                        They cannot evaluate evidence if all evidence has been destroyed.

                        &gt; I don&#x27;t think intelligence services are equipped to do this. But if we go by who has the better data, better equipped and resource I would assume that America wins on that, so should we believe them more?

                        I find it odd that you would cite an American intelligence report right after implying that America is authoritarian and autocratic. You can&#x27;t have it both ways.

                        To point, the US intelligence report “does not address the merits of the two most likely pandemic origins hypotheses.” Its purpose was to declassify information concerning potential WIV connections and describe what US intelligence knew about WIV activities. You cited a report you didn&#x27;t read or didn&#x27;t understand.

                        I should also point out that the US agencies couldn&#x27;t agree. In 2023, FBI favoured a lab incident, Department of Energy favoured a lab incident, CIA favoured lab incident, and NIC + four other (name withheld) intelligence agencies favoured natural spillover.

                        1. shlant · 1791202692 · focus · HN ↗

                           &gt; I find it odd that you would cite an American intelligence report right after implying that America is authoritarian and autocratic. You can&#x27;t have it both ways.

                           I&#x27;m not sure if you just aren&#x27;t engaging with what is being said or are not reading the full post - he only shared that link IN RESPONSE TO you appealing to intelligence services. Read again:

                           &quot;I don&#x27;t think intelligence services are equipped to do this. &gt;&gt;&gt;BUT if we go by who has the better data&lt;&lt;&lt;&quot;

                           He is saying &quot;well IF we ARE going by intelligence services because YOU made that argument, then what about this?&quot;

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.