zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. derbOa+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-09-25 03:10:06
... but then you'd have to explain the infection geography in humans with two events. Not saying it's not possible, but lining it up with what's known epidemiologically speaking is different.

Also, I'm not sure why the lab leak hypothesis is suddenly trickier. They had all sorts of samples.

Labeling this all as "mental gymnastics" as in the article, or "a dagger in the heart of the lab leak hypothesis" is just the sort of motivated analysis confirmatory bias that caused all this in the first place. I'm not sure how arguing that SARS-CoV-2 involved two spillover events with crossover from multiple species is less mental gymnastics than "a lab had multiple samples".

Honestly I'd like to see more dispassionate discussion of this. That Nature piece is shameful.

At some level I don't care if it was a lab leak or not but I wish there wasn't this level of motivation behind both sides.

In any event, the grant proposal should raise a lot of red flags regardless. What bothers me often is this implied assumption that if the lab leak hypothesis is false, everything else is fine. It's all fine that a plausible biosecurity failure scenario was ridiculed, that major research groups clearly lied about and tried to cover up conflicts of interest, that we can trust these (GoF) lines of research are safe, that we can just trust the authority figures to not cause another pandemic, etc. etc. etc.

replies(2): >>sillys+33 >>gfodor+jb
2. sillys+33[view] [source] 2021-09-25 03:45:00
>>derbOa+(OP)
Just wanted to chime in and thank you both for an extremely interesting discussion. Carry on. Being a fly on the wall is fascinating here.
replies(1): >>crafti+W6
◧◩
3. crafti+W6[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 04:32:00
>>sillys+33
Really? I find it halfway interesting, as it is a discussion between someone who clearly understands the science and bureaucracy that surrounds that type of work, and someone who is chaining speculation and "what if's" like their life depended on it.
replies(1): >>sillys+77
◧◩◪
4. sillys+77[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 04:35:56
>>crafti+W6
Definitely. Because companies need both types of people to succeed. I’ve also been on both sides of the table. It’s easy to underestimate the what-iffer and to overestimate the established senior —- and vice versa.

Better than TV.

replies(1): >>sillys+de
5. gfodor+jb[view] [source] 2021-09-25 05:50:52
>>derbOa+(OP)
You should def care if it was a lab leak or not, because as we have learned the only way we are going to address these risks properly if it was. The way to see this is obvious is that we are not acting as if it was a lab leak, and we should be.
◧◩◪◨
6. sillys+de[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-25 06:39:18
>>sillys+77
Jaysus, I just wanted to say thanks for a convo. To confess my sins, I didn’t read it too closely on either side. I’m currently trying to fall asleep. The idea that people did know a thing or two about biology on HN was appealing.

I have to say though, the flagged reply was thoroughly entertaining. Thank you sir or ma’am for the high praise; I aim to please.

[go to top]