Comment by TrispusAttucks | Hacker News Reader

Comment by TrispusAttucks | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Excellent display of Sealioning [1] there as I literally shared a link with many articles (from the same publication) that make a strong case for the lab leak origin theory.

I originally completely rejected the lab leak as conspiracy theory to anyone who brought it up, but my opinion has been swayed by several revelations.

To summarize from the wider internet [x]:

- EcoHealth DARPA proposal (DEFUSE)

- HVAC Failures identified at Wuhan prior to Nov 2019

- U.S. intel 3 Wuhan lab researchers ill with COVID like symptoms Nov 2019

- Drastic increase in Wuhan Lab security posture after HVAC failure

- Removal of Wuhan virus databases after HVAC failure

- Request of removal of viral genes from NIH databases

- The various released email documents of internal discussions at NIH

- The unnatural characteristics of the sequence that hint at possible lab origin

The rejected EcoHealth Alliance DARPA documents literally call for the creation of a novel COVID virus with similar features as COVID-19.

Even if it wasn't engineered they were collecting bat coronoviruses there and leaks from labs are not unheard of and have happened in the past at various facilities.

That paints a pretty common sense compelling argument to me.

We currently do not know for sure which is the case but at this point in time the scales tip towards lab for me and the word "strong" is valid. I respect your disagreement though.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[x] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/u-s-intel-report-...

[x] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/lab-leak...

[x] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...

[x] https://www.yahoo.com/video/wuhan-lab-air-circulation-system...

[x] https://nypost.com/2022/05/11/nih-director-tabak-confirms-ag...

I asked for evidence once. That is not sealioning. But I do appreciate you taking the time to at least list the talking points of the lab leak hypothesis.

And now I see how this is a lot of circumstantial evidence, as reported earlier. But the problem is, even taking all these observations together and accepting them as evidence at face value, they can not explain the lack of or minority of or low density of infections surrounding the Wuhan Institute of Virology, nor can they explain the preponderance of and high density of infections tightly surrounding the Wuhan Fish Market.

Perhaps someone got infected at the lab, put on a hazmat suit, went shopping at the fish market, and removed their helmet there? Occam's Razor obliterates this idea as too complicated when a far simpler explanation is, like an elephant in the room, sitting in plain site, which is that SARS-CoV-2, like every other known virus ever, initially infected people in close proximity to animals in unsanitary conditions, neatly explaining the dense bloom of initial infections surrounding that market.

It's just my strong opinion, but I am flabbergasted that lab leak hypothesizers are so stubborn to ignore the way things have always happened, and there being such a good fit sitting right there at the market. They'd rather construct an unlikely scenario, a scenario that has never occurred before in 100 years of microbiology labs, of a thousand things going wrong to explain how the virus leaked from a modern and high tech virology lab.

They're not talking points.

They're just as circumstantial at the wet market.

Your hazmat comment makes no sense.

Spreading happens at high density areas. Origin is not the same as spreading.

I totally agree with your final sentiment if I ignored all the new revelations. In light of those revelations, that I am not sure you have investigated, it becomes increasingly hard maintain wet market as primary source.

The wet market stands out as the most likely culprit, because conditions existed there that are identical to what conditions we would expect a pandemic to arise from, because every other pandemic ever was caused in the same way in the same conditions, all of them, not just some, every single pandemic known was caused by conditions precisely, exactly like those found at the wet market. And, again, there have been dozens of lab leaks where contagions escaped labs, and as of yet, none have caused any pandemic, not even outbreaks.

So first of all, you need to prove it is even possible a lab leak could cause a pandemic. Because you are assuming that, and it certainly is not clear that is the case. In fact, all evidence points to the contrary... because it has never ever happened. Not ever, not even once in 100 years.

There’s a first time for everything, right? Don’t you think that it’s a pretty big coincidence that out of all the wet markets in the world, COVID-19 started in the one in a city with a major coronavirus research lab?

> There’s a first time for everything, right?

That's a lie. One counter example is there will be no first time that we get more energy out of a machine than we put in, because Conservation of Energy forbids this. But there are an infinite number of counter-examples to prove your statement is false.

Think I responded to you other comment, but the lab’s actually next door to the market, which is consistent with your reasoning. See page 119 of the WHO report: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/final-j...

> The Wuhan CDC laboratory moved on 2nd December 2019 to a new location near the Huanan market.

SARS-CoV-2 had already been circulating for months before Dec. 2019 in Wuhan near the wet market. And therein lies the rub, that this is not remotely compelling evidence a lab leak could have caused COVID-19. In fact, it is impossible, because, again, the virus had already been circulating right there for at least a few months prior to this. But nice try.

>>> explain the lack of or minority of or low density of infections surrounding the Wuhan Institute of Virology, nor can they explain the preponderance of and high density of infections tightly surrounding the Wuhan Fish Market.

OK, how about a lab person took it out of the lab and released it at the market?

> OK, how about a lab person took it out of the lab and released it at the market?

Well, you're going to need to identify that individual and their exact means, motive, and opportunity for causing a global pandemic. That is how we solve crimes.

Except that Occam's Razor eliminates that possibility as unlikely because it is much simpler explanation that COVID-19 was caused by the conditions exactly like those found at the wet market, just like every other outbreak, epidemic and pandemic ever. So you're going to have a bit of difficulty identifying an individual that never existed and, even if they did, has no compelling motive.

No, I don't need to do any of that. Spies sabotage countries all of the time.

You don't need to go that far. Corrupt (low level) employee sells lab animal remains at wet market would probably be enough.

Except that it is a far more complicated explanation than simply accepting that the unsanitary conditions at the wet market with multiple species of wild animals in close proximity to people neatly explains all the evidence.

This isn't any critique of this particular comment, but I feel like you are ignoring the known dynamics of Sars-cov-2. R_0 is dependent on population density around the person infected. An infected person walking down the street for miles amounts to very little R_0, until they enter a crowded sphere.

Also, are you aware that there already have been lab leaks of similar nature [0]? Whether they go on to mature into a pandemic is a matter of state handling. You seem to dismiss the mechanism entirely just because it hasn't ever spread past a certain point.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC416634/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com