Comment by DiogenesKynikos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiogenesKynikos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

DiogenesKynikos

You're linking an image of Google Maps, from a random PDF that someone posted on a website that anyone can post to without any peer review. The Google Maps image doesn't even say anything that means "Wuhan CDC." In fact, one of the buildings in the cluster is labeled a tire shop by Google Maps.

If you search on Google Maps for the Wuhan Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, you instead find a building about 1.5 km from the seafood market. If the random PDF you linked doesn't even get the location of the building right, how can I trust its other claims? But further, when I look at the web page of the WHCDC, it looks like they're mainly a community health institution, not a research institute. The people studying coronaviruses are 15 km away, in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

But if they're doing research, there should be publications, just as there are for the WIV. When you search bioRxiv for papers from them, all you turn up are papers from Jianghan University Medical School, which is even farther away from the market. The random PDF you're linking to appears to be wrong on a number of counts: both on where and what the Wuhan CDC is.

In short: Random PDFs from websites that anyone can upload to are not reliable sources of information.

> If you search on Google Maps for the Wuhan Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, you instead find a building about 1.5 km from the seafood market.

There is not just one building, this is the one mentioned:

https://map.baidu.com/poi/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E5%B8%82%E7%96%...

Remember that Google is effectively not operating in China anymore, so their information is bound to be outdated and incomplete.

> But further, when I look at the web page of the WHCDC, it looks like they're mainly a community health institution, not a research institute. The people studying coronaviruses are 15 km away, in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Scientists at the Wuhan CDC are studying live bats and bat coronaviruses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovnUyTRMERI&feature=youtu.be...

Here's where the PDF map says is the WHCDC offices. This is incorrect, isn't it? Both of the offices are not "across the street", but at least 3km away.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wuhan+Jiang'an+Center+for+...

> Scientists at the Wuhan CDC are studying live bats and bat coronaviruses:

Yes, but not in the two buildings you're linking to.

> Here's where the PDF map says is the WHCDC offices. This is incorrect, isn't it? Both of the offices are not "across the street", but at least 3km away.

It isn't incorrect. The Baidu Maps link[1] shows the WHCDC office also shown at the location in the PDF map, next to the hospital - a few hundred meters from the seafood market[2].

[1] https://map.baidu.com/poi/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E5%B8%82%E7%96%...

[2] https://map.baidu.com/search/%E6%AD%A6%E6%B1%89%E5%8D%8E%E5%...

> Yes, but not in the two buildings you're linking to.

I have no source that either proves or contradicts that - do you?

> Remember that Google is effectively not operating in China anymore, so their information is bound to be outdated and incomplete.

Yes, but the PDF that the GP comment scrounged up online used Google Maps. If you look at Baidu or Bing Maps, you see that the Wuhan CDC has many local offices. It appears to mainly be a community health organization that deals with things like vaccinations and awareness. What you're pointing to is not the central offices of the Wuhan CDC.

> are studying live bats

No, they're not. All the papers I've seen only discuss samples collected from bats in the countryside, and standard practice is to deactivate any virus in the samples before working with them.

Where the research described in the video you show is unclear to me, but it's not taking place in some little satellite community health center across the street from the seafood market.

It's really alarming how much of this Internet scavenger-hunting is being passed off as legitimate evidence, by people like "Project Evidence" (or whoever is behind it). People desperately want answers about the virus, and there are political actors taking advantage of that.

> Yes, but the PDF that the GP comment scrounged up online used Google Maps. If you look at Baidu or Bing Maps, you see that the Wuhan CDC has many local offices. It appears to mainly be a community health organization that deals with things like vaccinations and awareness. What you're pointing to is not the central offices of the Wuhan CDC.

You said they got the location wrong. They didn't, you just failed to find the office at that location. You don't actually know what the WHCDC does, or where it does its work, but you think you know better than the authors of the paper, who have worked in Wuhan.

> No, they're not.

Yes, they are. Did you even read the paper? They're reporting that hundreds of live bats were hosted at the WHCDC. I haven't seen anyone come out and disprove these claims, so they're most likely not just made up.

> All the papers I've seen only discuss samples collected from bats in the countryside, and standard practice is to deactivate any virus in the samples before working with them.

"I didn't see it, therefore it does not exist" - your way of reasoning.

> It's really alarming how much of this Internet scavenger-hunting is being passed off as legitimate evidence...

That paper was authored by researchers familiar with the matter, it's not "internet scavenger hunting". I'm not saying it's "legitimate evidence" either, but your "debunking" is a joke.

> You said they got the location wrong. They didn't, you just failed to find the office at that location

They used Google Maps, which doesn't actually list that as the location.

When you look for the main offices of the Wuhan CDC, on Google Maps, Baidu Maps or Bing Maps, you find a different location several kilometers away. I'll grant that a different map service, Baidu Maps, shows a small satellite community health center at the given location.

> Yes, they are. Did you even read the paper?

What paper? Nobody has posted any paper yet. All I've seen is a PDF from a website that anyone can upload to, which the authors subsequently deleted because they said they couldn't vouch for its claims.

> They're reporting that hundreds of live bats were hosted at the WHCDC. I haven't seen anyone come out and disprove these claims, so they're most likely not just made up.

Some random people on the Internet uploaded a PDF, so their claims are probably true? Is this the standard of evidence we've reached?

> That paper was authored by researchers familiar with the matter

I still don't know what paper you're talking about. Are you talking about the non-peer-reviewed PDF that was uploaded to a site anyone can upload to, and subsequently deleted by the authors?

The paper was retracted because, according to the authors, it did not offer "direct proof", but it was properly sourced as to the claims it made regarding the bat studies. Perhaps there has been some pressure from the authorities as well, that would not be unheard of.

Is it peer-reviewed and scientifically validated? No. Is it actual evidence that the virus originated in a lab? No.

It is simply a collection of facts that support the hypothesis that the virus could have come from a lab. The wildlife market origin is also just a hypothesis, supported by a handful of facts.

Yet, it is only the lab escape theory that is so quickly dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Why?

As for the political dimension, the actual origin does not really matter. The crimes of the CCP during the original outbreak are a matter of public record, they are not even being denied.

There is no paper. That's a word that implies a certain level of research, expertise and peer review. This is a "document" written up by non-experts, which engages in unfounded speculation with the barest of reasoning. The document even appears to get some basic facts wrong, like the location of the WHCDC lab and the presence (or rather, non-presence) of bats in the lab.

It was deleted ("retraction" isn't even really the right word, because we're not talking about a scientific paper) because it was wild speculation. There was not only no "direct proof," there was no piece of compelling evidence that pointed to a lab leak in the first place.

It's being dismissed by virologists as a conspiracy theory because it's just that: there's no evidence for it, and if you know anything about zoonosis and actual lab methods in virology, it's a wildly implausible hypothesis. It also requires one to believe that some highly respected scientific figures in virology, like Shi Zhengli, are blatantly lying.

It's not being as widely dismissed in the media as it should be, the reason being that a good part of the political class is intent on pushing it. Trump and Pompeo are promoting this theory in order to deflect criticism and turn anger about the US government's disastrous handling of the virus against a foreign enemy.

I've started noticing the phrase "CCP" being used more and more among people who are set on demonizing China. I think it's being used for the shock value, and because it taps into long-standing anti-Red sentiment in the US. I'll say this, though: whatever crimes the Chinese government committed, their handling of CoVID-19 turned out to be incomparably better than the US government's handling of the virus. Trump has now said that the deaths that will be caused by opening up are worth it. The Chinese government didn't passively watch as 70,000 of its citizens (increasing every day) died.

> There is no paper. That's a word that implies a certain level of research, expertise and peer review.

No it doesn't. Lots of junk papers get published by clowns, with or without peer review. They're still referred to as papers. The document I linked to follows the form of a scientific publication, so I'm calling it a paper.

Either way, whatever you call it makes no difference as to the content.

> The document even appears to get some basic facts wrong, like the location of the WHCDC lab and the presence (or rather, non-presence) of bats in the lab.

It doesn't get basic facts wrong. You got the facts wrong. There is a facility at the specified location, there is research on bats at the WHCDC. It's unclear whether such research took place at that particular facility, but you would expect that if there wasn't then it would simply be (truthfully) denied. Even if there wasn't any research there, an employee working on another facility could've visited it.

> It's being dismissed by virologists as a conspiracy theory because it's just that: there's no evidence for it, and if you know anything about zoonosis and actual lab methods in virology, it's a wildly implausible hypothesis. It also requires one to believe that some highly respected scientific figures in virology, like Shi Zhengli, are blatantly lying.

Wildly implausible? Well let me quote Shi Zhengli herself then:

"“I wondered if [the municipal health authority] got it wrong,” she says. “I had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China.” Her studies had shown that the southern, subtropical provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi and Yunnan have the greatest risk of coronaviruses jumping to humans from animals—particularly bats, a known reservoir. If coronaviruses were the culprit, she remembers thinking, “Could they have come from our lab?”"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-chinas-bat-wo...

It's correct that Shi Zengli later categorically denied that it came from her lab, the Institute of Virology, but only after looking into the specifics of the virus and those at her lab, not because a lab accident would've been implausible.

As for the "lab methods" at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (from their website, now deleted):

https://i1.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PRI...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-dep...

I'm not saying she is lying, but she would have good reasons to do so, saving face for herself and the whole country is tremendously important.

> It's not being as widely dismissed in the media as it should be, the reason being that a good part of the political class is intent on pushing it. Trump and Pompeo are promoting this theory in order to deflect criticism and turn anger about the US government's disastrous handling of the virus against a foreign enemy.

That's the crux of it, you can't allow this hypothesis to be plausible because your political enemy espouses it. Honestly, I don't see how it makes a difference. From a foreign perspective, an accident is an accident, whether it occurred in a wet market or laboratory.

> I've started noticing the phrase "CCP" being used more and more among people who are set on demonizing China.

I'm using the term CCP to distinguish between the regime and the country and its people.

> I think it's being used for the shock value, and because it taps into long-standing anti-Red sentiment in the US.

What's the "shock value" behind calling the ruling party of China by its name?

> I'll say this, though: whatever crimes the Chinese government committed, their handling of CoVID-19 turned out to be incomparably better than the US government's handling of the virus.

Did you pay any attention to what happened in China? Without the attempts of the CCP of hiding and downplaying the outbreak, it quite possibly could've been contained at least within China. Then, after it couldn't be contained, they used draconic measures to stop it. They arrested people in the streets for having an elevated temperature and put them into open-floor internment centers where people had no protection.

> Trump has now said that the deaths that will be caused by opening up are worth it. The Chinese government didn't passively watch as 70,000 of its citizens (increasing every day) died.

I'm sorry, but the US is not a dictatorship. The president doesn't get to dictate how the states handle such a situation. All of the hardest-hit places are run by Democrats, who could've acted early, but didn't.

Could the president have handled the situation better? Sure, but if you are waiting for Donald Trump to lead you in the time of a crisis, you are a moron. You don't get to blame your own ineptitude on the president.

It doesn't look at all like any legitimate scientific paper I've ever seen. It's wild speculation by non-experts, written up in an amateurish way.

There is no indication that there's a lab in that location, much less that they work on bats. The WHCDC is primarily a community health organization, and some tiny satellite office is not where they're doing research, if they even do any significant research in their own labs.

You're promoting a conspiracy theory that has zero evidence (someone online claiming they have bats in a building that doesn't even appear to be a lab is not evidence), I think for political reasons that you've made quite clear - your views on China.

About your use of the phrase "CCP," I say you're using it for shock value because I don't think you're actually specifically talking about the CCP. You're talking about the actions of government officials, policemen, etc. What is added by alluding to the political party? This is the same as with the WHO. Suddenly everyone acts like an expert on the WHO, when they actually know next to nothing about it. I think 99% of the people going on about the "CCP" couldn't tell you the first thing about it. They actually mean, "My mental picture of the evil Chinese government."

I paid close attention to how the Chinese government handled the outbreak. I think it would have been nearly impossible to contain, even with the most aggressive early response. The US and Mexico were unable to contain H1N1 in 2009, which is a less transmissible disease than CoVID-19. Containing a highly contagious respiratory virus is incredibly difficult. This is being underscored as we learn just how early the virus spread internationally. There was community spread in California in mid-January, and there is now a paper claiming the existence of a case in France in late December, before the virus was even discovered.

I am sure that the government in Wuhan resisted taking measures that could have slowed the spread of the virus early on, because they worried about the effects those measures would have on the economy. That is not something that is peculiar to China, however. Just look at how many governments around the world downplayed the virus, even as the epidemic grew exponentially within their borders. In Wuhan, there was about a week of downplaying, before the central government stepped in and forced extreme measures on the city, which turned out to be highly effective. You're criticizing those measures ("Draconian"), while also severely mischaracterizing them. Months in, most of the US still hasn't suppressed the outbreak properly, and now the President and much of the political establishment is suggesting that maybe it's better to let people die than to harm the economy.

In the end, I think one would have to be blind, or blinded by political ideology, to deny that China handled the outbreak better than the US did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com