zlacker

[return to "Scientists who say the lab-leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 shouldn't be ruled out"]
1. loveis+Oj[view] [source] 2021-04-09 15:24:15
>>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...

◧◩
2. eighty+3o[view] [source] 2021-04-09 15:40:09
>>loveis+Oj
I feel like people are doing a poor job distinguishing between "engineered" and "leaked."

There is, from my understanding, reasonable evidence to conclude the virus was not engineered from the perspective of "we took genes from one virus and moved them to this virus," but there's no evidence disproving the idea that it was the result of gain of function research.

My personal feeling is that these statements are true:

* The virus is unlikely to have been engineered (in the way I described above) and leaked.

* There is circumstantial evidence the virus was the result of gain of function research and it leaked.

* There is circumstantial evidence the virus was a natural research sample and it leaked.

* There is circumstantial evidence the virus was introduced by an animal/person who traveled to the wet market.

Some of these are more likely than others, and an individual's own calibration for what is likely or unlikely will probably come into play more than evidence in the short term and possibly long term as well. I can say the vast majority of us are not qualified to answer the question either way though.

◧◩◪
3. Bukhma+rX[view] [source] 2021-04-09 18:27:17
>>eighty+3o
My personal feelings are that all 3 are possible, but approximately 0.0001% of people will actually consider the likelihood of each one, but rather, most will choose whichever one is most convenient and comfortable to believe in.

Of course as an Asian person, whatever people believe in will have a direct impact on me. I remember after 9/11, the amount of awful things that were said and done to the Sikh population in my city. It didn’t matter they had literally nothing to do with the attacks. People were angry and wanted someone to blame.

◧◩◪◨
4. Robotb+K42[view] [source] 2021-04-10 02:30:23
>>Bukhma+rX
I assign non-negligible probability to each of them. I don't know.

But I hate the stupid racism and hate around it. COVID-19 attacked every country. With the exception of, like, New Zealand (but it affected them as well... had to shut down their borders, etc).

These viruses are a threat to all humanity. I just want us to fight them better and help everyone.

I think it's super important that we both simultaneously hold China accountable (rhetorically, in the social sphere at very least) for aggressive expansionary actions (i.e. vs Hong Kong, Taiwan, the Philippines) and human rights abuses (Uighur, etc)...

...while simultaneously trying to help everyone do better, including the Chinese, to face common threats (like novel viruses, climate change, etc). And we must not start up a new Cold War with all its proxy conflicts, death, and unnecessary economic suffering and threat of annihilation.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. spondy+Gf2[view] [source] 2021-04-10 05:17:37
>>Robotb+K42
> But I hate the stupid racism and hate around it. COVID-19 attacked every country. With the exception of, like, New Zealand (but it affected them as well... had to shut down their borders, etc).

As someone who lives in New Zealand, we were still "attacked" by covid all the same. The only difference arguably is the coordinated response from our government compared to others. Some of that is presumably culture too (we don't have a document held to a pseudo-religious standard ie the constitution for example) although being too laid back can have its consequences too if emergency health laws were to be abused in order to infringe on personal freedoms for example

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. darker+mC2[view] [source] 2021-04-10 10:49:44
>>spondy+Gf2
Being a small island country certainly played a role, no? Not to take anything away from your impressively functional government.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Robotb+gQ2[view] [source] 2021-04-10 13:34:02
>>darker+mC2
Being small kind of a bigger deal than being an island. Air travel doesn’t care much if you’re an island or not. The US is practically an island in many senses except for Mexico and Canada, but the virus didn’t come over land, it came over air in multiple places, especially from folks going on Alpine ski trips.

If we had shut down air travel early on globally (not just China...) and pursued a vigorous in-country test and trace program, we would’ve had a chance.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. darker+uj4[view] [source] 2021-04-11 02:25:24
>>Robotb+gQ2
Unlikely imo. False reliance on testing has created more issues than it helped. Look at Taiwan (another small island nation). They don't bother testing. If you are sick, it's assumed you have COVID and you quarantine for two weeks. Much smarter and safer imo.

I disagree, and think small island nations do have much better chances. Otherwise we'd probably have great success stories in places like Andorra, Armenia, and Vatican City. I'm sure island countries to be more self reliant, with fewer major transport hubs that can be locked down.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. Robotb+Sy5[view] [source] 2021-04-11 17:12:47
>>darker+uj4
Vatican City is not a near-island like the US, tho. It’s a micro state with massive travel to/from the rest of Italy (which was hit early).

Taiwan had high mask usage early on. That would’ve helped a lot in the US.

Testing was very successful, actually, in places like Singapore. Didn’t help that there was official discouragement of wearing masks followed by culture-war mask avoidance in the US.

[go to top]