This is a linkpost for https://www.racket.news/p/on-todays-explosive-coronavirus-story
Matt Taibbi's COVID reporting
15th Jun 2023
10Martin Fell
7localdeity
3Rafael Harth
1Martin Fell
2ChristianKl
-1ChristianKl
0Zack Sargent
7ChristianKl
4GeneSmith
1followthesilence
1Seth Herd
5GeneSmith
-1Mateusz Bagiński
10ChristianKl
7Brendan Long
1ChristianKl
6Charlie Steiner
4Mitchell_Porter
3supposedlyfun
2ChristianKl
3Sable
1Zack Sargent
-2ChristianKl
2GeneSmith
1zby
8ChristianKl
1zby
0eniteris
8ChristianKl
0eniteris
3ChristianKl
2ChristianKl
0eniteris
3ChristianKl
New Comment
34 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 1:30 PM
The seeming lack of widespread concern about the origins of COVID given that if it is of artificial origin it would be perhaps the worst technologically-created accidental disaster in history (unless I'm missing something) is really very disappointing.
1To take some version of the opposite side: If we managed to figure out that, say, there was an X% chance per year of lab-leaking something like COVID, and a Y% chance per year of natural origin + wet market crossover producing something like COVID... that would determine the expected-value badness of lab practices and wet market practices, and the respective urgencies of doing something about them. It wouldn't matter which specific thing happened in 2019. (For an analogy, if the brakes on your car stopped working for 30 seconds while you were on the highway, this would be extremely concerning and warrant fixing, regardless of whether you managed to avoid crashing in that particular incident.)
That said, it seems unlikely that we'll get decent estimates on X and Y, and much more unlikely that there would be mainstream consensus on such estimates. More likely, if COVID is proven to have come from a lab leak, then people will do something serious about bio-lab safety, and if it's proven not to have come from a lab leak, then people will do much less about bio-lab safety; this one data point will be taken as strong evidence about the danger. So, getting an answer is potentially useful for political purposes.
(Remember: SARS 1 leaked from a lab 4 times. That seems to me like plenty of evidence that lab leaks are a real danger, unless you think labs have substantially improved practices since then.)
Thanks, I appreciate it - I didn't really understand the downvotes either, my beliefs don't even seem particularly controversial (to me). Just that I think it's really important to understand where COVID came from (and the lab leak theory should be taken seriously) and try to prevent something similar from happening in the future. I'm not much interested in blaming any particular person or group of people.
The word "disappointing" suggests that the action taken to suppress widespread concern (like overruling the intelligence analysts) are bad. Why wouldn't you want to blame those who are responsible for the disappointing state of affairs?
It's a polarizing topic and some people seem to be emotionally attached to lab leak denial.
Some people are invested emotionally, politically, and career-ally in said denial. I am curious how many of them will have the humility to admit they were wrong. Sadly, this has become my only metric for the quality of public servants: Can they admit it when they are wrong? Do they offer to change, or do they just blame others for their failures? I assume none of them have this capacity until I see it. The "lab leak" story will offer an opportunity for us to observe a large number of public servants either admit their mistakes ... or not.
I think the framing of focusing on public servants is one about obscuring responsibility for people on forums like this who went along with the disinformation campaign to suppress the lab leak theory.
Spoiler: Less than 1% will admit they were wrong. Straight denial, reasoning that it doesn't actually matter, or pretending they knew the whole time lab origin was possible are all preferable alternatives. Admitting you were wrong is career suicide.
The political investments in natural origin are strong. Trump claiming a Chinese lab was responsible automatically put a large chunk of Americans in the opposite camp. My interest in the topic actually started with reading up to confirm why he was wrong, only to find the Daszak-orchestrated Lancet letter that miscited numerous articles and the Proximal Origins paper that might be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. The Lancet letter's declaration that "lab origin theories = racist" influenced discourse in a way that cannot be understated. It also seems many view more deadly viruses as an adjoining component of climate change: a notion that civilizing more square footage of earth means we are inevitably bound to suffer nature's increasing wrath in the form of increasingly virulent, deadly pathogens.
The professional motivations are stark and gross. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Thoughts on the origin are frequently dismissed if you're not a virologist. But all the money in virology is in gain of function. Oops!
I think the motivation to suppress the lab leak theory was to avoid compounding the crisis at the time with anti-Chinese sentiment, including racist attacks on Chinese Americans. Emotions were running really high.
I think we'll now see little energy for continuing that bias, and more energy for correctly identifying the source to prevent future pandemics from similar origins.
TBF, I predict that the public debate will still resemble a dumpster fire, as do most complex human affairs. Humans are cute, not smart.
Was "avoiding anti-Chinese sentiment" really a motivation? The official explanation is that some Chinese person ate like a barbecued bat or got bit by a pangolin or something. I don't see how a lab leak would make people any more racist or hateful towards the Chinese than the official explanation did.
I suppose that it probably was a motivation even though it did not make much rational sense to me. I just wonder if that concern was more of a matter of political identity rather than a considered response.
This was probably a factor but also:
IIRC research at WIV was done in collaboration with EcoHealth Alliance and/or other similar US-based orgs. Granting WIV BSL4 necessary for this kind of gain-of-function research was in part based on their assessments. US establishment had a reason to cover it up because it was in part their own fuckup.
The WIV did not do any work on Coronaviruses under BSL4. They did gain-of-function experiments under BSL2 and BSL3.
1Isn't 99.9% confident in this pretty extreme? If a thousand randomly selected similar cases came out, 999 of them would be lab leaks and only one would involve investigators missing something?
only one would involve investigators missing something?
Investigators always miss something and we are likely going to find more information in the future.
That doesn't change the fact that we have overwhelming evidence.
If you look at the article in Public, it makes the case: We know that the people at the WIV put a Furin cleavage side via gain-of-function modification into a Coronaviruses and we know that they did their research without the safety precautions that you would need and we know that one of the first patients was one of the people working with Coronaviruses at the WIV.
That's already a quite good argument and I can see why it alone isn't enough for 99.9% confidence but we are not limited to it.
I favor a lab origin, but I don't have confidence in these latest alleged details. These issues (like UFOs and Iraqi WMDs) that involve interplay between intelligence, politics, and technical expertise, are polluted by spy rumors, agitators with a factional agenda, and self-made "experts".
Meta question: If you think there is a 1 in 1000 chance that you are wrong, why would I spend any amount of time trying to change your mind? I am 99.9 percent confident in very few propositions outside of arithmetic.
Like, what are the odds that the anonymous sources are members of the intelligence community who are saying it now as part of the [CIA's, NSA's, whatever's] current political strategy relative to China? I don't trust Seymour Hersh's anonymous sources more than 70/30, even when The New Yorker publishes his pieces.
Meta question: If you think there is a 1 in 1000 chance that you are wrong
I don't think that credence is well thought of that way. Attempts to change my mind might change my credence even if they don't change it to me thinking that a natural origin would be the most likely.
I don't trust Seymour Hersh's anonymous sources more than 70/30, even when The New Yorker publishes his pieces.
My own beliefs don't rest on a single piece. I don't think that anyone should hold credence that is as high as mine just because they read this article.
Like, what are the odds that the anonymous sources are members of the intelligence community who are saying it now as part of the [CIA's, NSA's, whatever's] current political strategy relative to China?
Is that's the CIA position they could have just changed the official CIA position and say "We uncovered new evidence and now believe that the lab leak theory is more likely" there would have been no reason to tell a story about how they overruled their own analysts to hide the lab leak theory. The story as it stands damages the reputation of those agencies and I think "The CIA does what's good for the CIA" is a good heuristic to think about their actions.
What are some of the real-world consequences to this?
Will China ever admit it? I honestly don't expect the CCP to ever cop to this.
If so, what could the response be? I don't expect any kind of apology or mea culpa, much less any form of reparation.
I don't even expect gain of function research to stop.
Sarcastically: Some uptick in the betting markets on Ron DeSantis ...
But actually? I doubt any consequences. I agree that we'll continue with "gain of function." I'm more worried that secret labs developing biological weapons will be (re)started based on "gain of function" given that there was such a successful demonstration. A lab leak from someplace like that is even more likely to be a civilization killer than anything bats and pangolins were ever going to do to us.
What are some of the real-world consequences to this?
It seems that Fauci and Collins already saw the writing on the wall when the Republicans got the majority in Congress and decided to end their careers. That means they can't be fired for it.
After misleading the public in the Iraqi WMD case, there was some accounting in the media and an attempt to improve structures to avoid getting lied to by authorities. It's possible that our media institutions aren't completely lost and will do some accounting of why they failed to inform us.
This is quite a story.
I don't think my odds of lab origin are 99% yet, but I think after this article I'd move my odds from 80%->90%. I'd like to see confirmation by more sources before I move any higher. But the evidence looks pretty compelling with this point; the narrative is coherent, the counterarguments (of those I've read) seem weak. Though it's possible I've missed some stronger ones since most of the people in my information sphere seem to believe the lab leak hypothesis.
A honest question from an outsider (to American politics): isn't it now convenient for the current political establishment to go with the the lab leak hypothesis and so the change should not be taken into account when updating priors?
It's highly inconvenient for the establishment because it means that the establishment was wrong to censor the lab leak theory.
It's also highly inconvenient for all those inside of the establishment who want to to gain of function research or cover up past gain of function research.
Matt Taibbi's reporting suggests that it was inconvenient enough that a three-letter agency decided to overrule their analysts.
Pushing back against this being evidence at all, this claim has been repeated since 2020, so I don't know how it being restated again changes evidence much.
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/scicheck-no-bombshell-on-covid-19-origins-u-s-intelligence-rebuts-claims-about-sick-lab-workers/
The names of the WIV employees are new information. The WIV actually putting Furin cleavage sites into Coronoviruses in 2019 is new information. An US intelligence agency overruling their own analysts is new information.
The article you links to says:
But in its report, which arrived belatedly on June 23, the U.S. Intelligence Community, or IC, does not substantiate any of these details.
[...]
The 10-page report, which does not name any individuals, says the IC “continues to assess that this information neither supports nor refutes either hypothesis of the pandemic’s origins because the researchers’ symptoms could have been caused by a number of diseases and some of the symptoms were not consistent with COVID-19.”
Interestingly, the article leaves out the fact that they IC is in violation of the law by not naming the individuals given that they have been tasked with declassifying all the information.
I see no reason to leave out that crucial fact if your intention is not to misinform the reader. The fact that the IC is willing to violate the law and does not declassify the information is indiscriminating evidence.
If they would have nothing to hide, why would they violate the law?
I can't read your linked article due to access restrictions.
Interesting that the law required them to name the researchers, but they did not. Maybe they don't have the researcher's names? Maybe there wasn't enough confidence in naming the researchers, but the anonymous sources gave out speculative names as fact? Maybe the anonymous sources are lying?
There's a new article/interview going on with an apparent WIV worker who claims to have engineered SARS-CoV2 as a bioweapon and was ordered to release it, so at least some sources are lying about some things.
At this point I need verification of sources to believe any claims at all.
edit: It seems like at least two of the named Chinese researchers deny being sick at the time. Whether you trust their word or the word of anonymous alleged government sources says more about you than reality.
It seems like at least two of the named Chinese researchers deny being sick at the time. Whether you trust their word or the word of anonymous alleged government sources says more about you than reality.
So it's about whether you are the kind of person who believes free speech exists in China or whether you believe that it doesn't really exist and that researchers will say what the CCP wants them to say when it comes to issues that are very important to the CCP.
It's about whether when you put someone on trial for murder and they say "I didn't do it" you believe them or whether you find other people more believable.
At this point I need verification of sources to believe any claims at all.
That's fair and my high confidence comes from actually reading a lot of the primary sources and not just media reports.
When it comes to this claim in particular, let's look at the primary sources.
The bill requires them to:
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National Intelligence shall—
(1) declassify any and all information relating to potential links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the origin of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19), including—
(A) activities performed by the Wuhan Institute of Virology with or on behalf of the People's Liberation Army;
(B) coronavirus research or other related activities performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology prior to the outbreak of COVID–19; and
(C) researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who fell ill in autumn 2019, including for any such researcher—
(i) the researcher's name;
(ii) the researcher's symptoms;
(iii) the date of the onset of the researcher's symptoms;
(iv) the researcher's role at the Wuhan Institute of Virology;
(v) whether the researcher was involved with or exposed to coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology;
(vi) whether the researcher visited a hospital while they were ill; and
(vii) a description of any other actions taken by the researcher that may suggest they were experiencing a serious illness at the time.(2) submit to Congress an unclassified report that contains—
(A) all of the information described under paragraph (1); and
(B) only such redactions as the Director determines necessary to protect sources and methods.
The report that they released says:
(U) WIV RESEARCHERS WHO FELL ILL IN FALL 2019
Several WIV researchers were ill in Fall 2019 with symptoms;
some of their symptoms were consistent with but not diagnostic of COVID-19. The IC continues
to assess that this information neither supports nor refutes either hypothesis of the pandemic’s
origins because the researchers’ symptoms could have been caused by a number of diseases and
some of the symptoms were not consistent with COVID-19. Consistent with standard practices,
those researchers likely completed annual health exams as part of their duties in a highcontainment biosafety laboratory. The IC assesses that the WIV maintains blood samples and
health records of all of their laboratory personnel—which are standard procedures in highcontainment laboratories.
• We have no indications that any of these researchers were hospitalized because of the symptoms consistent with COVID-19. One researcher may have been hospitalized in this timeframe for treatment of a non-respiratory medical condition.
• China’s National Security Commission investigated the WIV in early 2020 and took blood samples from WIV researchers. According to the World Health Organization's March 2021 public report, WIV officials including Shi Zhengli—who leads the WIV laboratory group that conducts coronavirus research—stated lab employee samples all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.
While several WIV researchers fell mildly ill in Fall 2019, they experienced a range of symptoms consistent with colds or allergies with accompanying symptoms typically not associated with COVID-19, and some of them were confirmed to have been sick with other illnesses unrelated to COVID-19. While some of these researchers had historically conducted research into animal respiratory viruses, we are unable to confirm if any of them handled live viruses in the work they performed prior to falling ill.
You can tell for yourself whether you believe they reported here what the law required them. I think it's very clear that they didn't follow the law and withheld information.
If the person that fact check employed would have been half decent at their job, they should know that not including the details that the law asked for was a violation in the law but they failed to inform their readers about that fact.
And given the previous reporting of the IC leadership overruling their analysts when the analysts believed in the lab leak the fact that the IC leadership is illegally withholding information matters.
That's fair and my high confidence comes from actually reading a lot of the primary sources and not just media reports.
And yet your confidence is updated to 99.9% by an unverified anonymous second hand source.
I read both statements, thank you very much for reposting them here for clarity.
I do not believe the report is following the bill to the letter of the law. That being said, I do not believe this is evidence of malfeasance. It's possible this is all the information they have, and they do not have specific evidence on researcher names, hospital admittance dates, or other such details.
Honestly, if they provided such details, that would reveal how thoroughly they've infiltrated Chinese intelligence. Even if it was all provided and blacked out, that would still be revealing about their intelligence capabilities.
Even now I'm suspicious in how they knew researchers were sick. I know there were some social media reports going around, but how would they be able to confirm that? Did they even confirm the social media reports, or just trusted it was true because it's likely people are sick during flu season?
My best explanation would be they have a dragnet on Chinese social media and caught some of the researchers posting flu symptoms.
And yet your confidence is updated to 99.9% by an unverified anonymous second hand source.
This story is not the only new information that I have seen since I had my public likelihood two years ago at 99%.
I wouldn't call a source that Matt Taibbi interviewed unverified. I have a lot of trust built up in Matt over the 15 years. The article also does not say that anything in it rests on a single source.
Even now I'm suspicious in how they knew researchers were sick. I know there were some social media reports going around, but how would they be able to confirm that?
Why do you think the NSA exists? To only read social media reports? The NSA can easily hack hospitals to get relevant data. They can hack individual researchers. There are other sources as well that they could hack. They might access location data about when the researcher stayed home and when they went to the hospital.
They were not tasked with sharing how they know what they know, but just sharing what they knew.
One letter that the NIH send to the EcoHealth alliance back in 2020 said:
Disclose and explain out-of-ordinary restrictions on laboratory facilities, as suggested, for
example, by diminished cell-phone traffic in October 2019, and the evidence that there
may have been roadblocks surrounding the facility from October 14-19, 2019.
That statement reveals much more about intelligence capabilities than listing a bunch of names of researchers and their symptoms would.
One important point here is that according to the WIV itself they were facing a hacking attack back then which was their excuse for taking down the database of coronavirus sequences. The most likely source for that hacking attack seems to me to be a Western intelligence service.
Two years ago I wrote on LessWrong that my likelihood for the lab leak hypothesis 99% hypothesis. Given that updating on evidence is important I think I'm warranted to update to 99.9%.
I was wrong when I expected that the truth comes out sooner because I underrate the extent to which the intelligence community will try to mislead the public. In retrospect, that seems like a stupid mistake. Nevertheless, we seem now at the point where the public evidence will force more organizations to change their assessments.
We might also come into the phase where the press will start to focus on how the lab leak theory was suppressed.