Did your lab leak section have anything at all on biology as opposed to politics? I’m concerned that a lot of total non-experts seem to be promoting the genetic engineering hypothesis because it’s a good morality story, or it gives them someone to blame, or even just that it’s something exciting to talk about. Arguments like “wikipedia has broken links!” aren’t merely unconvincing to me, I find them actively causing me to raise my guard about the selection process that led it to my attention. And though engaging with the biology isn’t a surefire way to avoid repeating bs, at least it helps.
Here is an extremely long post by a science writer which i haven’t read, but I’ve heard him in reasonable-sounding discussions with actual biologists. Maybe what you are looking for is here.
I continue to state that most of what is being said by absolutely anyone about furin (and synonymous codon choice, in this case) to support lab ideas is simply nonsense. There is nothing particularly interesting at all about the genetics.
Most of what is said about all of that suggesting it is suspicious is truly ‘not even wrong’.
Insertions and deletions happen all the time rather than being some kind of rare freak event. They can be random gobbeldygook or they can be short sequence insertions from something else.
Lots of other coronaviruses have insertions and deletions at the same spot rather than it being something rare, just the creation of this particular type of cleavage site is rare. However, this cleavage site is known to increase host breadth and cell type breadth, so if you are conditioning on seeing something that jumped species it’s more likely. Other less closely related viruses have furin sites, but the SARS-like viruses are severely undersampled.
I honestly don’t even know what the codon choice people are arguing. You are creating a new insertion, not looking at the rest of the genome, why would the content of the rest of the genome be relevant to the odds of using a particular codon? Also, these codons are not selected against, they have kept up fine in the human population.
So this is sort of the same fallacy as the OJ Simpson defense team, where they argued something based on probability and failed to condition on something known?
At this point I (and I think most people) assume we will eventually know the origin of covid, with reasons that correctly model the physical world. I’m willing to sit back and wait for the more dedicated researchers to bring that answer to light.
The more pressing question for many of us is—why did “they” try so hard to prevent us from considering the lab hypothesis in the first place? And why did they use shame and guilt-by-association instead of ever telling us some physical facts that refute the lab hypothesis?
I encourage others who are interested to look into the biology, I have chosen not to do so myself due to limited time budget and lack of comparative advantage. I do know that the people I talked to who are better at biology/immunology than I am don’t think the biological facts are conclusive about the origin.
Not sure if this really belongs as a reply to Charlie or as a separate comment but seems to fit into the larger bucket here.
I do agree that considering the biology from a simple fact inquiry is needed (and I think others have been doing).
However, I think a big question is not being asked here. What happens if the truth becomes known? First, I think the outcomes will be a bit asymmetric—with proof of zoonotic origins being mostly a non-consequenceal outcome while proof of a lab leak potentially very dangerous.
Is there an element of some type of information cascade type situation here? How might that inform public debate and disclosure of facts and information?
Re “proof of a lab leak [is] potentially very dangerous”:
What’s the danger model here? That the US government would be forced to condemn China in that case and that China would react very aggressively to that? And that would lead to some kind of escalating spiral? Or something else?
Pretty much but perhaps a bit more extreme. What if that then spins into the view of a biologic warfare act that is feeding into the growing nationalism and increasingly polarized relationships and politics both internationally and internally in some countries vested in the discussion?
Did your lab leak section have anything at all on biology as opposed to politics? I’m concerned that a lot of total non-experts seem to be promoting the genetic engineering hypothesis because it’s a good morality story, or it gives them someone to blame, or even just that it’s something exciting to talk about. Arguments like “wikipedia has broken links!” aren’t merely unconvincing to me, I find them actively causing me to raise my guard about the selection process that led it to my attention. And though engaging with the biology isn’t a surefire way to avoid repeating bs, at least it helps.
https://nicholaswade.medium.com/origin-of-covid-following-the-clues-6f03564c038
Here is an extremely long post by a science writer which i haven’t read, but I’ve heard him in reasonable-sounding discussions with actual biologists. Maybe what you are looking for is here.
I continue to state that most of what is being said by absolutely anyone about furin (and synonymous codon choice, in this case) to support lab ideas is simply nonsense. There is nothing particularly interesting at all about the genetics.
Can you elaborate? I was a bit suspicious of this part of Wade’s article. It reminded me of the “watchmaker” argument.
Most of what is said about all of that suggesting it is suspicious is truly ‘not even wrong’.
Insertions and deletions happen all the time rather than being some kind of rare freak event. They can be random gobbeldygook or they can be short sequence insertions from something else.
Lots of other coronaviruses have insertions and deletions at the same spot rather than it being something rare, just the creation of this particular type of cleavage site is rare. However, this cleavage site is known to increase host breadth and cell type breadth, so if you are conditioning on seeing something that jumped species it’s more likely. Other less closely related viruses have furin sites, but the SARS-like viruses are severely undersampled.
I honestly don’t even know what the codon choice people are arguing. You are creating a new insertion, not looking at the rest of the genome, why would the content of the rest of the genome be relevant to the odds of using a particular codon? Also, these codons are not selected against, they have kept up fine in the human population.
So this is sort of the same fallacy as the OJ Simpson defense team, where they argued something based on probability and failed to condition on something known?
At this point I (and I think most people) assume we will eventually know the origin of covid, with reasons that correctly model the physical world. I’m willing to sit back and wait for the more dedicated researchers to bring that answer to light.
The more pressing question for many of us is—why did “they” try so hard to prevent us from considering the lab hypothesis in the first place? And why did they use shame and guilt-by-association instead of ever telling us some physical facts that refute the lab hypothesis?
I encourage others who are interested to look into the biology, I have chosen not to do so myself due to limited time budget and lack of comparative advantage. I do know that the people I talked to who are better at biology/immunology than I am don’t think the biological facts are conclusive about the origin.
I recommend this rootclaim page.
Someone (MondSemmel to be precise) posted this last week. I think it’s very cool, but also see last-week-me’s further thoughts here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/92aXvTXxReBQZk2gx/?commentId=Dg6EBu3Cjd6DcBxjD
Not sure if this really belongs as a reply to Charlie or as a separate comment but seems to fit into the larger bucket here.
I do agree that considering the biology from a simple fact inquiry is needed (and I think others have been doing).
However, I think a big question is not being asked here. What happens if the truth becomes known? First, I think the outcomes will be a bit asymmetric—with proof of zoonotic origins being mostly a non-consequenceal outcome while proof of a lab leak potentially very dangerous.
Is there an element of some type of information cascade type situation here? How might that inform public debate and disclosure of facts and information?
Re “proof of a lab leak [is] potentially very dangerous”:
What’s the danger model here? That the US government would be forced to condemn China in that case and that China would react very aggressively to that? And that would lead to some kind of escalating spiral? Or something else?
Pretty much but perhaps a bit more extreme. What if that then spins into the view of a biologic warfare act that is feeding into the growing nationalism and increasingly polarized relationships and politics both internationally and internally in some countries vested in the discussion?