zlacker

>>todd8+(OP)
Judging by the comments in this thread, it seems a lot of people are still unaware that:

1. Gain of function research primarily uses samples collected from nature, and seeks to stimulate their evolution in as natural a way as possible to learn how viruses evolve in nature. If such viruses were to escape the lab, they would appear "natural"

2. It's not xenophobic for people from the US to suggest the possibility of a lab leak, because the US was itself funding gain of function research on novel coronaviruses in the Wuhan BSL4 lab

3. Lab leaks happen more often than most people realize[1]

[1]https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/3/20/18260669/deadly...

>>loveis+Oj
It's also not xenophobic to suggest the possibility of a lab leak because lab leaks happen regardless of who's doing the research; even at BSL-4 facilities, mistakes are made. And also because there were two separate SARS-CoV-1 leaks/outbreaks from Chinese labs which the PRC admitted to. [1]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403836/

>>arctic+UM
The fact that this particular theory reaches the front page of hacker news every week, despite zero evidence besides the existence of a lab.. hey, we're just asking questions, here, right?

Frankly, it would be irresponsible NOT to provacatively suggest this thing we have no evidence of, repeatedly.

>>refene+LE1
Roll a die representing all possible human-bat virus interactions in the world.

How many of those rolls land next door to a lab researching these?

>>menset+RT1
Add in bat-livestock interactions and a very hands-on agricultural sector, and you get a real, real lot of rolls.

Obviously noone can prove a negative, there's a chance it came from that lab, but the odds are astronomical that it came about the same boring way as bird flu and SARS.

>>refene+0Y1
And SARS escaped from a lab twice. In China. The government at the time admitted it. So I’m not 100% that’s the example I’d go with haha.

It’s important to split this in two: one thesis is that it was invented or created or synthesized at a lab in China. This I’m far less bullish on.

The other separate thesis is regardless of origin, man made or wild, it accidentally or intentionally found its way through the doors of a lab in China and into society. It’s this one we’re talking about. At least I am.

>>arctic+J72
The point is it didn't start in a lab.

Look, if the point here is blame, have at it. It started in China, blame China, feel great about that and don't worry about our government's performance or theirs.

But if the point is truth, it probably came from agriculture->society. Labs are not necessary for that story, and China was blindsided anyways.

>>refene+Ue2
Define "start in a lab" -- are you talking about "created in a lab" or "accidentally released from a lab in which it was being studied causing a pandemic"?

If the latter, I don't think you have any evidence to say the pandemic didn't begin as a result of an accidental release from a lab in the literal epicenter of the pandemic. It's not possible to prove a negative in general, although in this case, it would have been pretty easy to prove by allowing international inspectors into the facility and turning over records.

Of course labs are not necessary. However, there's a precedent for labs causing outbreaks.

Were it indeed a totally spontaneous wild situation that occurred, why would I blame China? Diseases start all over the place, there's no fault for that. Any more than I blame the Congo for Ebola (named after the Ebola River) or America for Lyme disease (named after Old Lyme, CT). Even if it was an accidental release from a lab, I don't think China as an entity bears responsibility for that.

If it was an accidental release from a lab (an if), then they bear the responsibility for the coverup that led to insufficient efforts towards containment.

America has done a dreadful job to be sure, but that's more whataboutism.