> DEEP VZN drew especially sharp scrutiny because the EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit that specializes in sampling animals in attempts to prevent emerging diseases, played a central role in the PREDICT consortium. (EcoHealth also had a long-standing collaboration with the Wuhan lab at the center of the lab-leak theory.)
This is why it actually matters to try to figure out if the lab leak is the most probably cause, taking into account adverse interference based on the Chinese government's massive destruction of evidence. If the lab leak was the cause of the Covid-19 pandemic, then it is very reasonable to shut down related programs.
Regardless of whether it is, even if the probability of a leak is in general low, we have seen that the expected number of deaths is likely in the millions.
Airplanes had far far fewer deaths for the aerospace industry to reach current safety regulations and requirements.
Given that, the regulations and requirements when dealing with pathogens should increase accordingly to match the potential damage.
> It is blatantly and patently clear that is where the virus came from.
I don't think it's so clear. However, rejecting the lab leak is deeply unscientific.
From a Bayesian standpoint, before anything was known, it was silly to dismiss the probability. Estimates from before the pandemic suggested the annual risk was ~2.4% [1], or roughly less than a 50-year recurrence interval. Compare that to the base-rate of roughly 1% of natural spill-over once-every-hundred-year pandemics and it seems foolish to dismiss it. I tended to think the escape estimates were a bit overstated and so I reduced that to ~1% which puts it at about 50/50 without much additional knowledge.
After all the information to date has come in, there's circumstantial evidence in favor of both hypotheses. Unfortunately, it's quality is such that I doubt it pushes my truth estimate much beyond 60/40 one way or the other, so 50/50 remains a decent educated guess. The US top intelligence agencies mostly came to exactly the same conclusion.
The most disappointing part of the pandemic has been the utter lack of curiosity and professional duty displayed by journalists. The only other time I can think of such blatant dereliction of duty was the beginning of the war in Iraq.
Typical… during peace time nations often get complacent. During healthy time, nations often get complacent. I thought it would take longer given just two years ago most stuff was shut down.
Why is yours the top comment when it's obvious you didn't read the article? Canceling this program is a move to prevent future pandemics by reducing the chance of gain-of-function research to go awry and result in accidental release of augmented viruses.
There are other types of research on viruses, zoonotic virus reservoirs, all sorts of topics that don't involve intentionally making a sample more and more contagious or deadly.
Obama also instituted a moratorium on US federal funding for this class of research during his tenure. This is a bipartisan issue. Nothing controversial for anyone other than grant recipients who need this money to keep their business afloat.
Perhaps the complacency was assuming people would treat dangerous viruses as deadly weapons, and we've decided it's not worth the risk.
So not:
"Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks."
(Of course, common sense would say that if you're not willing to do this in your own backyard, you probably shouldn't let people with laxer standards and do it in theirs)
This is fantastic news. I recommend listening to Rob Reid's interview with Kevin Esvelt on the topic.
The gist is the program was designed to find potential viruses, then share them openly so countries without resources for this research could still prepare for future viruses. Obviously, open access to recipes for pandemic-grade viruses means they could also be used for nefarious means.
It's worth listening to the analysis as Rob Reid is an excellent interviewer and Kevin Esvelt is an expert in the field (he's at the forefront of gene drives).
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of who or what you're for or against. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Ditto for trolling.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with; it will eventually get your main account banned as well.
RcouF1uZ4gsC|2 years ago
This is why it actually matters to try to figure out if the lab leak is the most probably cause, taking into account adverse interference based on the Chinese government's massive destruction of evidence. If the lab leak was the cause of the Covid-19 pandemic, then it is very reasonable to shut down related programs.
PartiallyTyped|2 years ago
Airplanes had far far fewer deaths for the aerospace industry to reach current safety regulations and requirements.
Given that, the regulations and requirements when dealing with pathogens should increase accordingly to match the potential damage.
we_never_see_it|2 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
voz_|2 years ago
[deleted]
Enginerrrd|2 years ago
I don't think it's so clear. However, rejecting the lab leak is deeply unscientific.
From a Bayesian standpoint, before anything was known, it was silly to dismiss the probability. Estimates from before the pandemic suggested the annual risk was ~2.4% [1], or roughly less than a 50-year recurrence interval. Compare that to the base-rate of roughly 1% of natural spill-over once-every-hundred-year pandemics and it seems foolish to dismiss it. I tended to think the escape estimates were a bit overstated and so I reduced that to ~1% which puts it at about 50/50 without much additional knowledge.
After all the information to date has come in, there's circumstantial evidence in favor of both hypotheses. Unfortunately, it's quality is such that I doubt it pushes my truth estimate much beyond 60/40 one way or the other, so 50/50 remains a decent educated guess. The US top intelligence agencies mostly came to exactly the same conclusion.
[1] https://sci-hub.st/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00116
omginternets|2 years ago
regularjack|2 years ago
fategrilter|2 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
matt3210|2 years ago
rngname22|2 years ago
There are other types of research on viruses, zoonotic virus reservoirs, all sorts of topics that don't involve intentionally making a sample more and more contagious or deadly.
Obama also instituted a moratorium on US federal funding for this class of research during his tenure. This is a bipartisan issue. Nothing controversial for anyone other than grant recipients who need this money to keep their business afloat.
sp332|2 years ago
readthenotes1|2 years ago
So not:
"Scientists working in this field might say—as indeed I have said—that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484390/
(Of course, common sense would say that if you're not willing to do this in your own backyard, you probably shouldn't let people with laxer standards and do it in theirs)
kevlened|2 years ago
The gist is the program was designed to find potential viruses, then share them openly so countries without resources for this research could still prepare for future viruses. Obviously, open access to recipes for pandemic-grade viruses means they could also be used for nefarious means.
It's worth listening to the analysis as Rob Reid is an excellent interviewer and Kevin Esvelt is an expert in the field (he's at the forefront of gene drives).
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr28XeVYm8U
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5qWiCan9lAMnVrWqzpdHoI?si=0...
Kerb_|2 years ago
we_never_see_it|2 years ago
[deleted]
dang|2 years ago
Ditto for trolling.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with; it will eventually get your main account banned as well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
decremental|2 years ago
[deleted]