> The idea that these are "settled facts" flies in the face of papers like this that go to great lengths to hedge their language.
This paper does not go to great lengths to hedge its statements, and the authors have very explicitly stated on numerous occasions that their work rules out the lab leak idea.
> An epicenter is NOT where a thing started, and it's not in any doubt to even the most die-hard conspiracy theorists that the market was "the early epicenter".
The paper addresses this. First, the fact that multiple strains of the virus were found directly in the market is a very strong indication that there were multiple spillover events at the market. Second, it has now been established that wild animals that are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 were being sold at the market during the time period when the outbreak began. This is a big deal, because this is exactly how the original SARS spilled over in 2002. Third, the concentration of cases at and around the market, but not around the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is also strong evidence that the spillover was associated with the market, not the lab. If it were in the lab, there would likely be a cluster of cases at the lab itself, and in the surrounding areas where people from the lab frequent, not on the other side of the city, where wild animals that have caused previous SARS coronavirus outbreaks happen to be sold.
People who have followed the scientific investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 over the past 2.5 years know that the lab leak theory was always highly unlikely, and that all the evidence that has come to light has made it ever more unlikely. At this point, lab leakers (or at least those who are trying to keep their theories halfway consistent) are trying to argue that the virus somehow got from the lab to the market, where it began spreading. Their theories are becoming more convoluted and contrived as the evidence rules out each version of the theory, and it's getting a bit absurd.
A lot of people want to believe the lab leak theory. Scrolling through the comments here, there is a substantial overlap between this group and anti-vaxxers, as well as other people who oppose any efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus. I don't think people are clinging to this theory for rational reasons.
My initial statement wasn't for or against - it was that the method of argument isn't going to work on many people here on Hacker News, not because we're a bunch of antivaxxer conspiracy theorists, but because we're predominantly a bunch of people who work with logic, day in day out.
Things like:
> the authors have very explicitly stated on numerous occasions
... appeal to authority, and then fails to mention even one of those occasions, instant ignore
> First, the fact that multiple strains of the virus were found directly in the market is a very strong indication that there were multiple spillover events at the market. Second, it has now been established that wild animals that are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 were being sold at the market during the time period when the outbreak began.
This feels like an attempt at causing a "baffled by BS" response, something HN is particularly immune to - though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you're simply trying to use the correct nomenclature. In reality, you've not said anything here that contradicts anything I've said - multiple spillovers simply indicates that an animal reservoir existed before or concurrently to the initial outbreak period - it doesn't give any evidence for or against any particular primary source. If the unfamiliar terminology doesn't cause people to instantly skip, the lack of new insight will.
> Third, the concentration of cases at and around the market, but not around the Wuhan Institute of Virology
Generally speaking, I wouldn't expect there to be a large number of cases of a disease spread at or near a facility that deals with the testing of viruses and has strict containment protocols. Don't know about you, but I would hope they know how to wash their hands 99.9% of the time - I would hope a virus finding its way out of the campus or shared between professionals would be an extremely rare event.
That said, it would be interesting to see a side-by-side study, with the same statistical techniques, of a similar type of lab. There have been other lab leaks every few years, but as the paper points out, the large amount of attention brought about by the pandemic means a lot more data about this leak than we usually get.
> People who have followed the scientific investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 over the past 2.5 years know that the lab leak theory was always highly unlikely
... and it's exactly this intuition that stokes skepticism. Because if something was always considered unlikely, that's rarely the basis for sound science.
> Their theories are becoming more convoluted and contrived as the evidence rules out each version of the theory
Again, this statement suffers from low sample size, lack of examples, and uneven evaluation. A supporter of your POV presents a new hypothesis? Tries to find evidence to support or refute it? That's great! Science at work. A supporter of the Lab-leak theory presents a new hypothesis? It's just an absurd convoluted and contrived new theory because they couldn't get their last one to work.
And again, people skip over it, because the bias is obvious, and it doesn't come close to answering the question that laypeople are searching for answers to - i.e. where did SARS-CoV-2 originally come from.
Anyway, hopefully this has helped you see why a rational rejection of your arguments in this particular space is not evidence of tinfoil hats clinging to irrational conspiracy theories. By all means, bring your faith. Bring some evidence too, and many of us would love to join you. But without the evidence, a certain assured opinion is not going to help you here.
> My initial statement wasn't for or against - it was that the method of argument isn't going to work on many people here on Hacker News, not because we're a bunch of antivaxxer conspiracy theorists, but because we're predominantly a bunch of people who work with logic, day in day out.
Looking at the comment section here, I do see a large number of anti-vaxxers, and their comments appear to be very popular. I've noticed this quite a bit on HN, and I'm not sure what the reason for it is.
I know a lot of people both in tech and in scientific research. While tech people are generally very clever, that does not necessarily mean that they all understand how scientific research works, or that they keep up with the latest research into coronaviruses. A common mistake that some technical people make is assuming that their reasoning ability in programming, engineering, etc. somehow means that they don't have to have domain knowledge to discuss a different technical subject.
You have to actually follow the research into coronaviruses to find out what's known about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Simply put, people who get their information from Ebright's Twitter thread are not in a good position to evaluate this question.
> By all means, bring your faith. Bring some evidence too
I linked to a very thorough scientific paper on the subject, which establishes that the initial outbreak in Wuhan was at the market, not at the lab. If you're calling that "my faith," you're just not arguing in good faith.
This paper does not go to great lengths to hedge its statements, and the authors have very explicitly stated on numerous occasions that their work rules out the lab leak idea.
> An epicenter is NOT where a thing started, and it's not in any doubt to even the most die-hard conspiracy theorists that the market was "the early epicenter".
The paper addresses this. First, the fact that multiple strains of the virus were found directly in the market is a very strong indication that there were multiple spillover events at the market. Second, it has now been established that wild animals that are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 were being sold at the market during the time period when the outbreak began. This is a big deal, because this is exactly how the original SARS spilled over in 2002. Third, the concentration of cases at and around the market, but not around the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is also strong evidence that the spillover was associated with the market, not the lab. If it were in the lab, there would likely be a cluster of cases at the lab itself, and in the surrounding areas where people from the lab frequent, not on the other side of the city, where wild animals that have caused previous SARS coronavirus outbreaks happen to be sold.
People who have followed the scientific investigations into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 over the past 2.5 years know that the lab leak theory was always highly unlikely, and that all the evidence that has come to light has made it ever more unlikely. At this point, lab leakers (or at least those who are trying to keep their theories halfway consistent) are trying to argue that the virus somehow got from the lab to the market, where it began spreading. Their theories are becoming more convoluted and contrived as the evidence rules out each version of the theory, and it's getting a bit absurd.
A lot of people want to believe the lab leak theory. Scrolling through the comments here, there is a substantial overlap between this group and anti-vaxxers, as well as other people who oppose any efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus. I don't think people are clinging to this theory for rational reasons.