8 ms·

If we apply Occam's razor [1] decision between "Wuhan, however, is home of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading world center for research on coronaviruses

If we apply Occam's razor [1] decision between "Wuhan, however, is home of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading world center for research on coronaviruses" and "Wuhan, there is a wet market where under certain conditions virus can jump from bat to monkey to person" is relatively straightforward But then, we should probably also apply Hanlon's razor [2] "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

tgv 5y ago
Nobody has spoken of malice. It could have been a simple case of one lab worker getting infected. That would count towards stupidity. Rhetorically speaking, Hanlon's razor doesn't quite have the same weight as Occam's, if only because people tend to view behavior they don't understand as stupid. But I'll add another "razor": don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to self-interested.
- anoncake 5y ago
  Malice is a form of self-interest.
  - koonsolo 5y ago
    I don't know why you are getting downvoted, because your statement is 100% correct.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      I wonder what people who disagree think malice actually is. Randomly harming others without even enjoying it?
      - darkerside 5y ago
        It's called masochism
        anoncake 5y ago
        Masochists like being hurt, and sadists enjoy hurting others which means doing so is in their interest.
  - tgv 5y ago
    I'd say it's a possible manifestation of self-interest, but that it isn't always self-interest. There are people that hurt others without any apparent self-interest. When it gets out of control, we call them sociopaths or psychopaths. But that's a minor point. My point was more that the dichotomy stupidity vs. malice seems to imply that e.g. playing music, or having dinner is either stupid or bad. Many things get done out of self-interest without being malicious, or without malicious intent.
dehrmann 5y ago
I assume practically every city in China has wet markets. I wonder how many cities have facilities that do virus research. It might actually be more than you'd assume; I have no idea what sort of research might happen at universities, You also have to weigh this with SARS Classic originating in China.
- carlmr 5y ago
  >SARS Classic The remakes are always worse.
  - astrange 5y ago
    This one's #3. MERS (#2) was the deadliest of all, though it didn't spread so well.
- seymore_12 5y ago
  "a leading world center for research on coronaviruses" presumes some form of uniqueness amongst potential other similar facilities
  - verbify 5y ago
    Presumably they specialised in coronaviruses because of the proximity to a bat population with coronaviruses, making sample gathering much easier? Are there other areas with significant coronavirus hosts? Are there other labs that specialise in coronaviruses to the same extent? The two seem linked to me, although I have no background in this area. So we'd a priori expect coronavirus to originate in the area with coronavirus hosts, whether it was through the lab or the market...
    - adrianb 5y ago
      It's been written everywhere that the horseshoe bats most likely to carry coronaviruses live in Yunnan province, more than 1000 km away. It's where the closest COVID relative was found as well. Also while there are other species of bats near Wuhan, they are in hibernation in winter.
saiya-jin 5y ago
I keep repeating this since it seems like folks ignore this quite crucial piece of data which completely changes the whole Wuhan covid narrative - Covid was backdated in blood samples in September 2019 in Italy. They didn't have earlier samples still kept on ice, so its entirely possible it would be there earlier. Since its rather trivial to compare viruses and I haven't seen mention about it being a different variant, I assume its still the same virus as original Wuhan ones. Even to my rather ignorant eyes this makes Wuhan just a place it got spread to wider public, and not much more. Definitely not some patient-0 situation and most probably not even ground-0 one. Now I don't claim to understand why it didn't explode in those early days like it did afterwards, but this fact can't be ignored when evaluating this topic. I wonder why there isn't a single mention of this in article.
- carlmr 5y ago
  With air traffic everything that was in Italy in November could have come from any country with same day express shipping.
- fsh 5y ago
  It is worth noting that this was claimed in exactly one publication from researchers that are not experts in the field. The publication has meanwhile earned an expression of concern [1] by the publisher that unfortunately does not give much more details. It is also quite strange that the paper was published in a journal about cancer research. The other big inconsistency is that the epidemic did not become nonticeable in Italy until late February 2020. If COVID was already present in September 2019, why didn't it spread rapidly like it did anywhere else? [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300891620987756 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03008916209877...
trog 5y ago
> If we apply Occam's razor [1] decision between "Wuhan, however, is home of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading world center for research on coronaviruses" and "Wuhan, there is a wet market where under certain conditions virus can jump from bat to monkey to person" is relatively straightforward Heh, what is the Razor or other applicable language construct when someone gives two options and then suggests there's one they think is obviously correct, without saying which one or why - leaving it completely opaque or confusing to the casual reader? I legit do not know which of the two cases here you think Occam's Razor applies straightforwardly. I can make easy cases for both sides being the simplest explanation. e.g., "it seems simplest that the leading world centre would have excellent safety protocols and thus the chaotic wet market in a region known for those viruses is more likely the source", vs "it seems simplest that human error in a research environment studying these viruses compared to a wet market where, if that was a likely vector, we'd surely be seeing these things way more often", kind of thing.
- wallacoloo 5y ago
  > it seems simplest that the leading world centre would have excellent safety protocols There’s an unnecessarily large assumption being made here. We can look at the Wuhan institute’s past and the history of comparable labs to get an estimation of lab leak frequency. Similarly, there’s a whole bunch of context around things like: what kind of samples did the lab have in its freezers when covid was discovered? In the wetmarket case, what’s the transmission chain from a reservoir through to the market have to look like? Once you compile all this context, then Occam’s Razor becomes a good tool. But before that it’s just a shot in the dark (kinda like you hint at). I’m not sure any single HN comment is really capable of giving sufficient context for this particular case.
- twobitshifter 5y ago
  If you knew that US state department had flagged safety concerns with Wuhan and claimed knowledge of infected lab workers, would that change your idea of the “leading world center” https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan...
- 5y ago
KirillPanov 5y ago
> But then, we should probably also apply Hanlon's razor [2] "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" Escape from an incompetently-secured and reckless lab definitely falls under "stupidity". There is nothing malicious about it.
astrange 5y ago
> If we apply Occam's razor [1] decision between "Wuhan, however, is home of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading world center for research on coronaviruses" and "Wuhan, there is a wet market where under certain conditions virus can jump from bat to monkey to person" is relatively straightforward The conclusion that "the coronavirus originated in Wuhan therefore the Wuhan Institute caused the virus" could be backwards even if the correlation is real. It could be the virology institute is in Wuhan because there are bat coronaviruses near there.
himinlomax 5y ago
There's no razor to apply, both hypothesis are plausible at this point based on available evidence and without any speculation whatsoever. And still without any speculation, one of those hypothesis could potentially be confirmed if only the main suspect did let us look at the crime scene. In any criminal trial, said suspect would get a guilty verdict from the jury in minutes.
- Majromax 5y ago
  > In any criminal trial, said suspect would get a guilty verdict from the jury in minutes. No, since in a criminal trial the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That hasn't been met here. This article certainly makes a prima facie case which would be enough to trigger discovery in a civil case. A reasonable person could also think that it has provided proof on the balance of probabilities, which would be enough for civil but not criminal liability.
hnzix 5y ago
Occam's razor is a heuristic that says to test the most likely hypothesis first. It doesn't make the simplest explanation automatically correct.
jackweirdy 5y ago
I thought according to the crossover theory the virus was not theorised to have crossed from animal to person in the wet market, but was in humans already at that point and that was just the first “superspreader” site
btmorex 5y ago
Could also be God.
Thorentis 5y ago
Hanlon's razor does not apply here. The theory outlined in the article does not suggest the lab leak was intentional, but rather an accident. To me, Occam's razor strongly suggests an accidental lab leak.

tgv 5y ago

Nobody has spoken of malice. It could have been a simple case of one lab worker getting infected. That would count towards stupidity. Rhetorically speaking, Hanlon's razor doesn't quite have the same weight as Occam's, if only because people tend to view behavior they don't understand as stupid. But I'll add another "razor": don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to self-interested.

anoncake 5y ago
Malice is a form of self-interest.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  I don't know why you are getting downvoted, because your statement is 100% correct.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    I wonder what people who disagree think malice actually is. Randomly harming others without even enjoying it?
    - darkerside 5y ago
      It's called masochism
      - anoncake 5y ago
        Masochists like being hurt, and sadists enjoy hurting others which means doing so is in their interest.
- tgv 5y ago
  I'd say it's a possible manifestation of self-interest, but that it isn't always self-interest. There are people that hurt others without any apparent self-interest. When it gets out of control, we call them sociopaths or psychopaths. But that's a minor point. My point was more that the dichotomy stupidity vs. malice seems to imply that e.g. playing music, or having dinner is either stupid or bad. Many things get done out of self-interest without being malicious, or without malicious intent.

dehrmann 5y ago

I assume practically every city in China has wet markets. I wonder how many cities have facilities that do virus research. It might actually be more than you'd assume; I have no idea what sort of research might happen at universities, You also have to weigh this with SARS Classic originating in China.

carlmr 5y ago
>SARS Classic The remakes are always worse.
- astrange 5y ago
  This one's #3. MERS (#2) was the deadliest of all, though it didn't spread so well.
seymore_12 5y ago
"a leading world center for research on coronaviruses" presumes some form of uniqueness amongst potential other similar facilities
- verbify 5y ago
  Presumably they specialised in coronaviruses because of the proximity to a bat population with coronaviruses, making sample gathering much easier? Are there other areas with significant coronavirus hosts? Are there other labs that specialise in coronaviruses to the same extent? The two seem linked to me, although I have no background in this area. So we'd a priori expect coronavirus to originate in the area with coronavirus hosts, whether it was through the lab or the market...
  - adrianb 5y ago
    It's been written everywhere that the horseshoe bats most likely to carry coronaviruses live in Yunnan province, more than 1000 km away. It's where the closest COVID relative was found as well. Also while there are other species of bats near Wuhan, they are in hibernation in winter.

saiya-jin 5y ago

I keep repeating this since it seems like folks ignore this quite crucial piece of data which completely changes the whole Wuhan covid narrative - Covid was backdated in blood samples in September 2019 in Italy. They didn't have earlier samples still kept on ice, so its entirely possible it would be there earlier. Since its rather trivial to compare viruses and I haven't seen mention about it being a different variant, I assume its still the same virus as original Wuhan ones. Even to my rather ignorant eyes this makes Wuhan just a place it got spread to wider public, and not much more. Definitely not some patient-0 situation and most probably not even ground-0 one. Now I don't claim to understand why it didn't explode in those early days like it did afterwards, but this fact can't be ignored when evaluating this topic. I wonder why there isn't a single mention of this in article.

carlmr 5y ago
With air traffic everything that was in Italy in November could have come from any country with same day express shipping.
fsh 5y ago
It is worth noting that this was claimed in exactly one publication from researchers that are not experts in the field. The publication has meanwhile earned an expression of concern [1] by the publisher that unfortunately does not give much more details. It is also quite strange that the paper was published in a journal about cancer research. The other big inconsistency is that the epidemic did not become nonticeable in Italy until late February 2020. If COVID was already present in September 2019, why didn't it spread rapidly like it did anywhere else? [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0300891620987756 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03008916209877...

trog 5y ago

> If we apply Occam's razor [1] decision between "Wuhan, however, is home of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a leading world center for research on coronaviruses" and "Wuhan, there is a wet market where under certain conditions virus can jump from bat to monkey to person" is relatively straightforward Heh, what is the Razor or other applicable language construct when someone gives two options and then suggests there's one they think is obviously correct, without saying which one or why - leaving it completely opaque or confusing to the casual reader? I legit do not know which of the two cases here you think Occam's Razor applies straightforwardly. I can make easy cases for both sides being the simplest explanation. e.g., "it seems simplest that the leading world centre would have excellent safety protocols and thus the chaotic wet market in a region known for those viruses is more likely the source", vs "it seems simplest that human error in a research environment studying these viruses compared to a wet market where, if that was a likely vector, we'd surely be seeing these things way more often", kind of thing.

wallacoloo 5y ago
> it seems simplest that the leading world centre would have excellent safety protocols There’s an unnecessarily large assumption being made here. We can look at the Wuhan institute’s past and the history of comparable labs to get an estimation of lab leak frequency. Similarly, there’s a whole bunch of context around things like: what kind of samples did the lab have in its freezers when covid was discovered? In the wetmarket case, what’s the transmission chain from a reservoir through to the market have to look like? Once you compile all this context, then Occam’s Razor becomes a good tool. But before that it’s just a shot in the dark (kinda like you hint at). I’m not sure any single HN comment is really capable of giving sufficient context for this particular case.
twobitshifter 5y ago
If you knew that US state department had flagged safety concerns with Wuhan and claimed knowledge of infected lab workers, would that change your idea of the “leading world center” https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan-institute-of-virology/index.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/fact-sheet-activity-at-the-wuhan...
5y ago

KirillPanov 5y ago

> But then, we should probably also apply Hanlon's razor [2] "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" Escape from an incompetently-secured and reckless lab definitely falls under "stupidity". There is nothing malicious about it.

astrange 5y ago

himinlomax 5y ago

There's no razor to apply, both hypothesis are plausible at this point based on available evidence and without any speculation whatsoever. And still without any speculation, one of those hypothesis could potentially be confirmed if only the main suspect did let us look at the crime scene. In any criminal trial, said suspect would get a guilty verdict from the jury in minutes.

Majromax 5y ago
> In any criminal trial, said suspect would get a guilty verdict from the jury in minutes. No, since in a criminal trial the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That hasn't been met here. This article certainly makes a prima facie case which would be enough to trigger discovery in a civil case. A reasonable person could also think that it has provided proof on the balance of probabilities, which would be enough for civil but not criminal liability.

hnzix 5y ago

Occam's razor is a heuristic that says to test the most likely hypothesis first. It doesn't make the simplest explanation automatically correct.

jackweirdy 5y ago

I thought according to the crossover theory the virus was not theorised to have crossed from animal to person in the wet market, but was in humans already at that point and that was just the first “superspreader” site

btmorex 5y ago

Could also be God.

Thorentis 5y ago

Hanlon's razor does not apply here. The theory outlined in the article does not suggest the lab leak was intentional, but rather an accident. To me, Occam's razor strongly suggests an accidental lab leak.