Hacker News Reader

Comment by drew-y | Hacker News Reader

Saying "all the experts" think it may actually be true is a big stretch. It's far more accurate to say that the experts haven't ruled it out. But they still think natural origin is far more likely[1].

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

View on HN

He should not have used the word all, but this feels like a really pedantic point to me. The main thing is that there is no consensus that it didn't get created that way.

These two things are vastly different: A) All the experts agree that covid comes from a wuhan lab B) Experts have not ruled out a lab leak

Pointing out such a difference is not being pedantic, and in fact is hugely important

The post said "all the experts are saying may actually be true". The "may" (not "is"!) there is pretty key in making the meaning a lot closer to your (B) than anything like your (A)... Did that comment get edited after yours? Because it seems like you are arguing against a strawman, not what was actually said.

But that is not the difference here. The original post said "Something [meaning the lab leak theory] all the experts are saying may actually be true". This is somewhere in between your A and B and at least to me sounds closer to B than A, as "may actually be true" is more of an acknowledgment of possibility than an assertion of probability. It's definitely not a statement of certainty.

But the statement in question was not "all experts agree that covid comes from a wuhan lab", it is "all experts agree that covid could come from a wuhan lab". That's still unlikely to be 100% accurate, but your version A is a complete misrepresentation.

I said that almost "all the experts" agree that it may be true, not that they necessarily believe it to be so.

Still. There is a difference between saying something hasn't been ruled out and saying that it may be true. To me, "may be true" implies a decent (> 10% chance) that it is true. My impression is that most experts do not think it's true. They just don't have enough evidence to definitively rule it out.

Really? Just yesterday: "The WHO's Chief Says It Was Premature To Rule Out A Lab Leak As The Pandemic's Origin."

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-la...

That headline is literally my point.

"It Was Premature To Rule Out A Lab Leak" === We do not have enough evidence to definitively rule it out.

We are talking about a one-off event that happened in a totalitarian country with a huge penchant for purging undesirable information.

Even experts are on a shaky ground when almost all primary information sources are controlled by a non-cooperative party. The only thing concerning the origin of the epidemics that is beyond reasonable doubt is the genetic sequence of the virus. We do not even know for sure who the first covid-19 patient really was and when.

Of course it is hard to speak with confidence in such a situation.

I don't see an "almost"

I thought this theory was debunked by scientists over a year ago?

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/22/841925672/scientists-debunk-l...

> I spoke to Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance

This guy became a little controversial [1] after a FOIA request turned up emails in which he appears to be conspiring with colleagues to manipulate public perception:

> “you, me and him should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn’t work in a counterproductive way.” Daszak added, “We’ll then put it out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.”

> Baric agreed, writing back, “Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact.”

[1]: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-...

It was debunked by some scientists, but nowhere near all, and there was no consensus.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-la...

That is the truth. But mainstream Propaganda as it typically does shouted loudly that IT DID NOT COME FROM A LAB IN WUHAN.

Seems like the inevitable result is decision fatigue, where people decide, in the face of 2 irreconcilably polarized viewpoints that it's not worth the emotional stress of all the information overload to try to understand which is correct and simply give up.

"Debunk" is becoming quite the loaded term. For one thing it's being used definitively despite the fact that there are still ongoing debates. The other thing is that it implies a sort of finality. New evidence or the results of an investigation can pop up anytime.

It was not: https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-peop...

A few months ago, it was forbidden to think about. Now it’s considered a real possibility by the mainstream. Next year, it will probably be considered irrefutable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com