zlacker

>>ruarai+(OP)
This is definitely not my area of expertise but:

role of furin cleavage site in covid:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-0184-0

"In fact, no influenza virus with a furin cleavage site has ever been found in nature,"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7435492/

Where did this mutation come from?

>>waynes+Dp1
It's never been found in an influenza virus in nature, but covid isn't an influenza virus. Is this never found in coronaviruses in nature?

>>bugzz+Up1
From that second link:

> Although they only emerge under artificial conditions in influenza viruses, these furin cleavage sites are found within several branches of the coronavirus family tree. However SARS‐CoV‐2 is the only lineage B coronavirus found with one, and the only other coronaviruses known to have them are only at most 60% identical to this novel coronavirus.

>>tshadd+qq1
I'm not waynesonfire, but seriously, what is up with people making deliberately misleading claims (e.g. highlighting it is not found in influenza viruses, even though covid virus is not influenza), and then providing a link that specifically debunks the implication they are trying to make.

It's like people just depend on nobody following the links they post.

>>hn_thr+Jr1
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

>>dang+Qr1
Hi dang,

I am curious to know if this guideline applies only when responding to HN comments, or if it should be applied to source material in article links as well. I've noticed a lot more conspiracy-theorizing comments lately and it's hard to engage when the whole premise of a given comment is accusing someone else of misrepresenting facts.

Thanks for all your hard work, regardless!

>>stonog+Mw1
It totally applies to the articles too. That wasn't in my mind when we introduced that guideline but it turns out to apply just as nicely at that level.