21 votes

ProPublica reporting on the newly released congressional report about COVID origins

20 comments

  1. [3]
    skybrian
    Link
    FYI: translators are saying on Twitter that this report is based on serious translation errors. The article itself says that this is a difficult task: Not knowing Chinese, let alone how Chinese...

    FYI: translators are saying on Twitter that this report is based on serious translation errors.

    The article itself says that this is a difficult task:

    Party speak is “its own lexicon,” explains Reid, now 44 years old. Even a native Mandarin speaker “can’t really follow it,” he says. “It’s not meant to be easily understood. It’s almost like a secret language of Chinese officialdom. When they’re talking about anything potentially embarrassing, they speak of it in innuendo and hushed tones, and there’s a certain acceptable way to allude to something.”

    Not knowing Chinese, let alone how Chinese bureaucrats write, this isn’t something we will be able to figure out ourselves. Need to see how the conversation plays out.

    13 votes
    1. [2]
      GnomeChompski
      Link Parent
      So then it seems that China is taking a page out of 1984 and creating their own version of Newspeak. This is very interesting.

      So then it seems that China is taking a page out of 1984 and creating their own version of Newspeak. This is very interesting.

      1 vote
      1. DanBC
        Link Parent
        Interestingly the UK has a bit of quite old idiom about "civil service Mandarins" which is used about UK officials who work behind the scenes in a secretive way.

        Interestingly the UK has a bit of quite old idiom about "civil service Mandarins" which is used about UK officials who work behind the scenes in a secretive way.

        1 vote
  2. [6]
    post_below
    (edited )
    Link
    The report notes that there is nothing definitive, instead concluding that a lab leak is "more likely than not". What an interesting ride it's been, for a while the lab leak hypothesis was...

    The report notes that there is nothing definitive, instead concluding that a lab leak is "more likely than not".

    What an interesting ride it's been, for a while the lab leak hypothesis was relegated to conspiracy land. Now it seems to be where many experts are leaning.

    Edit: I should probably add, in advance, that the report was released by republican minority members of a bi-partisan group looking into the origins of COVID.

    For whatever it's worth, I'm hoping to avoid the politics. It was good enough for me, at least, that ProPublica was able to corroborate the details. Their reporting has always been high quality in my experience.

    9 votes
    1. [3]
      knocklessmonster
      Link Parent
      I thought the conspiracies were that it was weaponized, but I guess there's a scale. Frankly it's more terrifying that the pandemic could have been caused by a breach of safety procedures, because...

      I thought the conspiracies were that it was weaponized, but I guess there's a scale. Frankly it's more terrifying that the pandemic could have been caused by a breach of safety procedures, because those happen all the time. Unfortunately it wouldn't be the first breach to cause massive issues, just look at the UK smallpox outbreak I think in the 70s in the UK where it breached containment.

      If ProPublica is looking at information that could've been released to create a specific narrative and finding it is accurate, then that also adds another layer of intensity, I guess, to the story. It also raises questions about the future of viral research.

      12 votes
      1. arghdos
        Link Parent
        I found it a bit odd that they placed so much emphasis on the analysis of a former Rubio staffer (Toy Reid) who was saying very directly that his work was based on a subjective read of official...

        If ProPublica is looking at information that could've been released to create a specific narrative and finding it is accurate, then that also adds another layer of intensity, I guess, to the story.

        I found it a bit odd that they placed so much emphasis on the analysis of a former Rubio staffer (Toy Reid) who was saying very directly that his work was based on a subjective read of official memorandum. That said, there was enough other supporting evidence in the piece to make the lab-leak hypothesis plausible — possibly this was the result of what Reid et al uncovered, but the piece didn’t really make that clear.

        6 votes
      2. markhurst
        Link Parent
        The UK had a much more recent lab leak than the 70s. From Where did the coronavirus come from? (Op-ed by Zeynep Tufekci in NYT, June 25, 2021): More resources on the lab-leak hypothesis at my...

        The UK had a much more recent lab leak than the 70s. From Where did the coronavirus come from? (Op-ed by Zeynep Tufekci in NYT, June 25, 2021):

        Nearly every SARS case since the original epidemic has been due to lab leaks . . . In 2007, foot-and-mouth disease, which can devastate livestock and caused a massive crisis in Britain in 2001, escaped from a drainage pipe leak at an English lab with the highest biosafety rating, BSL-4.

        More resources on the lab-leak hypothesis at my Media Diet page on Covid: Corona, Year 1.

        3 votes
    2. DanBC
      Link Parent
      One of the problems is that people were supporting their theories (not just lab leak, wet market too) with racist stereotypes.

      for a while the lab leak hypothesis was relegated to conspiracy land.

      One of the problems is that people were supporting their theories (not just lab leak, wet market too) with racist stereotypes.

      7 votes
    3. AugustusFerdinand
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Lab leak was the obvious reason at least a year back when the NYT article with history, timeline, and actions taken was published.

      Lab leak was the obvious reason at least a year back when the NYT article with history, timeline, and actions taken was published.

      2 votes
  3. [11]
    NoblePath
    Link
    I like how this article challenges political and national biases. I do not like Burr. I really, really do not like the Rand Corporation, or Rubio. Burr, at least to me a progressive voter in NC,...

    I like how this article challenges political and national biases.

    I do not like Burr. I really, really do not like the Rand Corporation, or Rubio. Burr, at least to me a progressive voter in NC, strikes me as old-school awful republican: holding that government should never help people because that's God's role; while still capable of actually reviewing contrary information and reaching compromise. Another caveat about me personally, I am definitely a guy whom many might call "conspiracy theorist," although I would describe myself as one who is open minded about reality, skeptical of mainstream reports, and mindful that every human has an impulse to get away with whatever they can, and that sometimes those impulses arise in people of great means who take the impulse great lengths. And, we ought to catch those people and curb their impulses as soon and as often as we can.

    The article seems well reasoned and cautious, providing a well-written inductive case of best available information suggesting a lab leak. Often coincidences are just that. But this lab was right there, geographically, where the first cases were identified, and was doing very high level research on the exact virus family that caused the pandemic. Hardly enough to make any definitive claim, but well more than enough to take a very serious look at the relationship. Additionally, I was surprised to learn there is evidence of a leak of the delta variant from a lab in taiwan, and that SARS was also the result of a lab leak in Taiwan. This enhances the plausibility of the a lab leak.

    Now, taking the leap from lab leak to bioweapon is a really big one, way too far over the line. The evidence suggesting that is very scant. Maybe enough to keep it in the back pocket for now, but not enough to laminate it or put it in a folder.

    One thing I have noticed since the beginning is that there appears to be a very passionate dismissal of the lab leak origin 'hypothesis' among the "serious" Certainly scientists of all stripes have a strong incentive for their industry to maintain a very high safety rating among the public in general and funders in particular. But it would be disappointing and an abrogation of scientific 'duty' to not make a conscious effort to bar that incentive from impacting assessment of the evidence. But in many online discussions in which I have partaken, any mention of a lab leak origin is met with the same, often emotional, response as if I had claimed that the definitive answer is a bioweapon release. I find this troubling, and hope perhaps this article, which reaches across the political aisle in the name of reason, will restore a cooler analysis of what might be going on.

    5 votes
    1. [9]
      rosco
      Link Parent
      People are pretty nervous and overreactive, I can see why scientific institutions wouldn't want backlash from an already increasingly anti-science/academia populous. For me it comes down to...

      One thing I have noticed since the beginning is that there appears to be a very passionate dismissal of the lab leak origin 'hypothesis' among the "serious" Certainly scientists of all stripes have a strong incentive for their industry to maintain a very high safety rating among the public in general and funders in particular. But it would be disappointing and an abrogation of scientific 'duty' to not make a conscious effort to bar that incentive from impacting assessment of the evidence

      People are pretty nervous and overreactive, I can see why scientific institutions wouldn't want backlash from an already increasingly anti-science/academia populous. For me it comes down to benefit/loss. What do we gain from publicly declaring negligence from a Chinese research facility? More of the racism and anti-science response that we saw at the beginning of this? I don't think there will be additional accountability from China as we already had grounds for damages (a la the Australian suit) based on their handling and cover up of the initial spread. I might be being naive, but I don't see a real benefit (politically, socially, or geopolitically) by digging into this. I can't believe that is my take now, but here we are.

      10 votes
      1. [2]
        NoblePath
        Link Parent
        Well, the benefit is twofold. First, integrity is an end to itself. We lack this all over the place, so many documents classified to protect the wrong people for the wring reasons. Second, and...

        Well, the benefit is twofold.

        First, integrity is an end to itself. We lack this all over the place, so many documents classified to protect the wrong people for the wring reasons.

        Second, and more practically, if it was a leak, we need to study it closely so as not to repeat it. I understand that maybe we are in a time and arena where we cannot study the thing without blame and throwing stones, and that really sucks if true.

        5 votes
        1. rosco
          Link Parent
          That's valid. I would be surprised if there weren't already an investigation carried out by China to change their protocols. They also suffered pretty badly from the outbreak.

          First, integrity is an end to itself. We lack this all over the place, so many documents classified to protect the wrong people for the wring reasons.

          That's valid.

          Second, and more practically, if it was a leak, we need to study it closely so as not to repeat it. I understand that maybe we are in a time and arena where we cannot study the thing without blame and throwing stones, and that really sucks if true.

          I would be surprised if there weren't already an investigation carried out by China to change their protocols. They also suffered pretty badly from the outbreak.

          1 vote
      2. [6]
        post_below
        Link Parent
        What we gain, were it to turn out to be a lab leak, would be an increase in public skepticism and awareness about GoF research. We already know labs leak bugs, despite their best efforts. It's...

        What we gain, were it to turn out to be a lab leak, would be an increase in public skepticism and awareness about GoF research.

        We already know labs leak bugs, despite their best efforts. It's happened multiple times in various countries. As a result of lab accidents the US government had a moratorium on GoF research from 2014 to 2017.

        I personally don't think GoF research should exist at all. The potential benefits are tiny compared to the downsides. And all of benefits (to the public at large) are theoretical. As far as I know GoF research has never succeeded in preparing us for an organism that existed outside of GoF research. It could, maybe, eventually, but probably not. Which to me isn't a compelling reason to do it.

        But most people have no reason to be aware of GoF research, or to care one way or the other if they are. If it was responsible for the pandemic, though, people would care quite a lot.

        2 votes
        1. [5]
          rosco
          Link Parent
          That's very interesting. My understanding is that we were able to produce vaccines at such an accelerated rate because of previous research on Corona type viruses. I may be misunderstanding GoF...

          I personally don't think GoF research should exist at all. The potential benefits are tiny compared to the downsides. And all of benefits (to the public at large) are theoretical. As far as I know GoF research has never succeeded in preparing us for an organism that existed outside of GoF research. It could, maybe, eventually, but probably not. Which to me isn't a compelling reason to do it.

          That's very interesting. My understanding is that we were able to produce vaccines at such an accelerated rate because of previous research on Corona type viruses. I may be misunderstanding GoF research though.

          But most people have no reason to be aware of GoF research, or to care one way or the other if they are. If it was responsible for the pandemic, though, people would care quite a lot.

          Definitely true. My worry is still that knee jerk public pressure campaigns tend to be more brimstone and fury than reasoned and leveled. I'll have to read more into GoF though.

          1 vote
          1. [4]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. skybrian
              Link Parent
              This is one reason I prefer to take the role of an observer, not a participant. For 97% of what's going on in the world, my opinions are uninformed, I have no influence on what happens, and...

              This is one reason I prefer to take the role of an observer, not a participant. For 97% of what's going on in the world, my opinions are uninformed, I have no influence on what happens, and getting upset about it isn't going to matter much. But we can try to follow what the experts are saying, using quotes and links to spotlight what looks like more informed discourse, if we see any.

              There is occasionally "news you can use" but what goes on in research labs definitely isn't it.

              4 votes
            2. [2]
              NoblePath
              Link Parent
              I want to push back a little. First, regarding labs located where the viruses are, which is not a circumstance I had considered. While I have no reason to doubt the examples provided, it's...

              I want to push back a little.

              First, regarding labs located where the viruses are, which is not a circumstance I had considered. While I have no reason to doubt the examples provided, it's reasonably well known that many labs in many regions study many pathogens from around the world. It's also reasonably well known that coronaviruses are globally distributed, such that any lab anywhere that researches coronviruses (or flu, or any other number of globally distributed diseases) is researching the viruses of its region.

              And the WIV was not simply in a region where the viruses it studied appear, it was in the same city, and within walking distance of the market currently considered to be location of infection zero. Such a close coincidence is not dispositive, but it is indicative.

              Regarding the evidence for the market place origins hypothesis, as I understand it is largely limited to statistical analysis of the geographical relationship early patients to each other, which seems to include a possible center near the marketplace. Apparently this relationship conforms to some epidemiological models. Solid evidence, but again, indicative, not dispositive.

              Evidence points to it not being engineered

              This fact is irrelevant to a discussion regarding whether it came from an animal or the lab, and I find including it objectionable, as it seems intended to associate the leak with the possibility of bioengineering, and lend an irrational bias against the leak origin narrative.

              The LA times story under your link is a good example of my objection to folks who seem to have an overly emotional and preconceived resistance to the possibility of a lab leak. The story employs hyperbole and poor logic. For example, the story claims that there is not one "scintilla of evidence" in PP/VF's article, but this is patently untrue. PP/VF present definite evidence--statements made by CCP officials and expert analysis. The opinions may be faulty, even preposterously so, but this does not mean they are not clear evidence.

              What's worse to me is that the LA times article, and other critics of the PP/VF/Congressional report, seem to want us to ignore what they tacitly admit: the CCP does use a "read between the lines" style of communication. If the critics want to bolster their argument, it should be simple to produce similar reports from the CCP where the meaning between the lines is clearly not so sinister.

              Additionally, under American jurisprudence at least, we may infer from the CCP/WIV's reticence and lack of transparency that they are hiding what we think they might be.

              A note on experts: they are not always meant to provide a multi-sided picture. They are meant to explain the data to the best of their ability. This often means they digest the data and form a thesis, and then describe how the data and their analysis lead to the thesis. The best will identify and explain countervailing data, but even the best don't have unlimited access or unlimited resources. If we as folk have an interest, its upon us to weigh the data, the expert's credibility, and wrestle within and among ourselves to decide the truth.

              It does, I think, lead to day to day consequences. It will inform and influence my day to day activities based on whether I hold that I can generally trust experts, media, and fellows to reach what appear to me to be rational conclusions, in line with values I find important.

              1. [2]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. NoblePath
                  Link Parent
                  We are about to get pedantic, but you seem to have missed my key points so I’m going to reiterate them. You, and also the la times, are comflating to issues around the evidence in support of...

                  We are about to get pedantic, but you seem to have missed my key points so I’m going to reiterate them.

                  You, and also the la times, are comflating to issues around the evidence in support of facts.

                  There are three questions to ask about evidence. First, is it evidence? Second, what exactly is the evidence saying? And third, is it credible?

                  Pp/vf are presenting actual evidence, as opposed to conjecture/conclusorybstatements. If i blurt out, The building is in fire! I have made a statement of fact, but not presented any evidence. If i say, I see flames and smoke in the building! I have provided evidence. If I then say, the building must be on fire! I have then provided number one and two. If then a third, independent person states I also see flames and smoke!, we then have a rise in credibility.

                  What PP/VF have said is, we see flames and smoke! We think the building might be on fire, let’s take a closer look! This is good reporting. Others have said there’s no fire or smoke. This is a challenge to credibility. But to make the claim that there is no evidence is to add only conflict.

                  Regarding the distance, it’s vieeable on google maps, which reports the distance as 17km, an afternoon walk.

                  3 votes
          2. post_below
            Link Parent
            Gain of function researchers attempt to tweak existing viruses to make them more dangerous. The theory is that they might manage to make them more dangerous in a way that they could become more...

            Gain of function researchers attempt to tweak existing viruses to make them more dangerous.

            The theory is that they might manage to make them more dangerous in a way that they could become more dangerous naturally, and then we'll be better prepared.

            GoF research did not help us create COVID vaccines. I imagine previous genome research on coronaviruses did help.

            1 vote
    2. psi
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      I think this was an unfortunate side effect of right-wing scaremongering. Recall that the Trump administration, in an effort to deflect from their inept response to the pandemic, instead insisted...

      One thing I have noticed since the beginning is that there appears to be a very passionate dismissal of the lab leak origin 'hypothesis' among the "serious"

      I think this was an unfortunate side effect of right-wing scaremongering. Recall that the Trump administration, in an effort to deflect from their inept response to the pandemic, instead insisted on calling it the "China virus" and blaming China for the virus leaking. Some right wing provocateurs went so far as to declare the leak intentional. (I promise the rest of this post isn't just me ranting against conservatives.)

      Well, how do you respond to that? The issue here wasn't that the scaremongers were necessarily wrong -- if they were wrong, we could counter their misinformation with evidence. The issue was that there wasn't evidence either way; all we had were some priors to suggest a lab leak was possible, given the location and the lab's work.

      More generally, when we consider the truth value of a statement, we also must consider our degree of certainty. It's the difference, for example, between gnostic atheism (God can't exist because there's so much suffering in the world) and agnostic atheism (there's no evidence to suggest God exists).

      But still: how do you respond? Responsible people should say: well, we don't know if it was a lab leak. It might have been. It might not have been. We just don't know. But now you have one group of people saying, baselessly and with certainty, that there was a lab leak, possibly intentionally. And now you have a second group of people saying that we just don't know. Uninformed people are going to pick the unweighed average, and the unweighed average of those opinions is that there was probably a lab leak, possibly intentionally.

      But obviously the unweighed average isn't warranted here! However, you can't change how uninformed people process contradictory information, so that second group becomes a little more forceful with their wording: there was no lab leak. Now the second group is making the same mistake as the first group -- they're both claiming with certainty things they don't know -- but the unweighed average is right where it should be.

      But that also means the experts are lying, and ironically a weighed average in favor of the experts is now farther from the truth than the unweighed average. And for those of us who trusted the experts, we now have to reckon with the fact that we were mislead. And that sucks.

      7 votes