Hacker News Reader

Comment by ftxbro | Hacker News Reader

> Even with an open mind, you look at the scientific data that is available to you, and what do we have as evidence that it’s a lab leak? Nothing but the coincidence that it evolved in a city that people were studying these types of viruses.

I'm not anti vax or anti mask and I like that Fauci stood up to Trump to dispute things like “Hydroxychloroquine is going to be a cure,” or “the virus is going to disappear like magic next month”. I'm not a Trump fan or Fox news enjoyer. But what Fauci is saying about the lab leak evidence and gain of function stuff is misleading. Some irresponsible people did some bad stuff and covered it up, and Fauci is helping the cover.

View on HN

Fauci should have said "Nothing but a lot of circumstantial evidence" instead of "coincidence". The lab leak theory was never truly ruled out, but we don't have (and likely never will) enough evidence to really conclude anything about labs, or intentionality. There is a lot more evidence for the wet labs but honestly, by my read, it's also circumstantial.

> But what Fauci is saying about the lab leak evidence and gain of function stuff is misleading.

Would you like to elaborate? I'm interested to see your explanation of how one of the most prominent infectious disease experts in the world is being misleading.

> Some irresponsible people did some bad stuff and covered it up, and Fauci is helping the cover.

Can you offer any explanation why someone who has spent their whole life working on infectious disease would participate in a cover up? Can you point to anything concrete that Dr. Fauci would gain by participating in a cover-up?

He’s a former government official who openly changes his messaging based on polling data, not scientific evidence. It’s not unreasonable to discount his public statements.

> “When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi...

Which is what public officials do because perfect is the enemy of good, but better is still better.

Ideally he probably wanted 100% compliance. And if he could get 70% rather than 60%, so much the better.

Maybe he had the same attitude on covid origins. The origin doesn't matter for mitigating the pandemic and it's better for NIH and international relations if it comes from only a bat and not any lab. This is what public officials do because perfect is the enemy of good. Ideally he probably wanted 100% truth but if he could get 70% truth and everyone is on the same page, so much the better.

>He’s a former government official who openly changes his messaging based on polling data, not scientific evidence. It’s not unreasonable to discount his public statements.

What nonsense. OP and you either have actual useful information that contradicts what OP specifically called out as inaccurate or you don;t.

You don't which is why you fixate on something else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com