Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheBlight | Hacker News Reader

Disagree that it's misplaced. If it was caused by a lab leak it's easier to address before it happens next time via a simple change in protocols for this type of research e.g. all GoF work is done in an isolated environment not in the middle of major population hub.

View on HN

The means by which a virus appears is much less relevant than the response to the virus. We need a robust plan on dealing with viruses regardless of their origin. All this talk on trying to find the origin is missing the forest for the trees.

This depends on the priors you assume for future events,

e.g. if one ignores the GoF research and it therefore increases the likelihood of continued research, does that also increase risk of periodic outbreaks akin to this pandemic and a higher frequency than natural outbreaks from animal>human?

We need both.

We need to have a better plan for dealing with future viruses but we should also look to make what changes we can to reduce the number of new viruses that jump to humans in the first place.

Just because this one was a lab leak doesn't mean the next one has to be. I think origin would be worth knowing just for the historical record, but ultimately it doesn't matter in the slightest.

It matters. Zoonotic viruses that jump to humans naturally tend to be less well adapted to human biology, and thus less contagious. That potentially gives us more time to respond before they evolve really dangerous human adapted variants. Whereas GoF research using human tissue or transgenic animals can produce viruses that are perfectly adapted to humans right out of the gate.

That’s true. I don’t remember any other viruses being this contagious for a long time. Avian flu, swine flu, not nearly as contagious as Delta and spreading asymptomatically.

Ebola - not as contagious. Perhaps AIDS was the closest.

Measles, Chickenpox, Rubella, Mumps, Polio, Pertussis, Smallpox, HIV as you mentioned, SARS, Diphteria and the common cold all have basic reproduction numbers >= original Covid, per wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number

None of them were “novel” or recently appeared — as the ones I mentioned

What’s your definition of “recent”? Some of us remember when HIV starting infecting our friends. It doesn’t seem that long ago to me.

I mentioned HIV in my comment, speaking about recent. The reply mentioned all kinds of viruses besides HIV that weren’t recent — so it was a strawman.

… and yet hiv doesn’t spread by simple being close to somebody. How can you say it’s as much as contagious as covid?

AIDS, (HIV) spent a long time in human the population before it became a serious problem.

Right. I didn’t really mean the speed but the infectiousness, because people were asymptomatic when infecting each other during the incubation period. It was just really long with AIDS

hey, aren't you the "kids without comorbid conditions are not at serious risk from covid" guy? how's it going with that? And sheesh, to think you were the one calling others ignorant…

still giving out medical advice I see! ;)

What a bizarre, off-topic comment. Why would you think that a discussion about the risks of GoF research constitutes medical advice?

We are fortunate that most children are at minimal risk from COVID-19 death. The CDC estimated the infection fatality rate for the 0-17 age group at about 0.001%. Most of those who died had a serious underlying condition such as obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, or congenital heart disease.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02423-8

He'd still be right. Or are you saying kids without comorbidities are at a serious risk of dying? Because that would be literal misinformation

Reply on news.ycombinator.com