5 ms·

But the comment you’re responding to said it’s unknowable, not that it shouldn’t be known. It’s not an argument of merit but of practicality. I’d also add that

But the comment you’re responding to said it’s unknowable, not that it shouldn’t be known. It’s not an argument of merit but of practicality. I’d also add that it’s irrelevant. Let’s hypothesize that we find out tomorrow irrefutable evidence for this theory. What does it change? Are we going to start WWIII over it? I’d hope not. Maybe ‘the powers that be’ came to the same conclusion early on and tried to stem the public outcry, and maybe that’s ok. If you say that the value of finding out it was a lab leak would lead to stricter controls or dissuade similar research, I’d say that that has already happened. So I agree with OP in that it’s a distraction at this point and we should put all effort and mental energy into dealing with the pandemic rather than finding someone to blame.

kongin 5y ago
> I’d also add that it’s irrelevant. Let’s hypothesize that we find out tomorrow irrefutable evidence for this theory. What does it change? Demanding reparations from China for their WMD program going out of control would be a good start. Then criminal cases against everyone involved in the West who approved something so boneheadedly evil and pointless.
- nso 5y ago
  Research on viruses happens a lot of places, it doesn't mean it's being weaponized.
- shlant 5y ago
  do you think that live virus research including gain-of-function serves no purpose whatsoever other than for WMD's? It's just "evil and pointless"?
- GuB-42 5y ago
  That's a good way to start WWIII. WWII started like that. To make things simple, countries who lost WWI were destabilized and reparations were a big reason. It promoted the raise of nationalist, revengeful leaders like Hitler and Mussolini. You know the rest. They carefully avoided making the same mistake after WWII.
  - titovodka 5y ago
    Avoiding confrontation with evil will only allow evil to prevail. The only reason the US hasn’t gotten after china is because of the economic/supply chain ties and the implication of the US gov itself.
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    This is an oversimplification to the point of being just untrue.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  There is a fundamental difference between developing a biological weapon and a leak of a pathogen being analyzed as part of research program. There is absolutely as far as I know no reason to believe that covid is a biological weapon. Such a virus in fact would be an awful weapon. It acts very slowly relative to any evolving conflict with someone who has ample access to weapons that act of minutes and hours vs months and years. It is near impossible to broadly vaccinate your own population without telegraphing your intent to act and probably leaking your vaccine and may mutate beyond your ability to control it and damage your own population. It is like being in an armed standoff in a building full of soldiers from each side and "attacking" the enemy by setting fire to the building you are all in. A virus is a weapon of terror not war. It is unfit for purpose.
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    There is no reason to suppose that, if Sars-Cov2 originated at WIV that it was NOT part of a bioweapons program simply considering the tight integration of the PLA with all forms of research deemed of national interest in China. It's certainly not evidence AGAINST there being a bioweapons angle to Sars-Cov2 (if it emerged from WIV) that the PLA is involved (as it has been documented it is)[0][1]. [0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/16/chinese-maj-gen-chen-wei-takes-leading-role-in-cor/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/16/chinese-maj... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02523-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02523-x
  - patentatt 5y ago
    I don’t want to argue it is a weapon, but just playing devils advocate here … the pandemic has been far more destabilizing to democracies in the west than autocracies. Unilateral, heavy-handed action is effective at combating pandemics. And it’s not inconceivable that some bigwigs in Beijing could see some population culling, especially in the more rural regions, as not a terrible thing. And it’s good cover to argue that it wasn’t an intentional weapon if it affects your own population too. I don’t believe it was an intentional release of a weapon, but if it were it wouldn’t be as self-sabotaging as it may first seem is all.
roenxi 5y ago
The takeaway in any event is it could have come from a lab. That should be enough to trigger some action around biosecurity. There is no reason to think this won't happen again in our lifetimes. We have this amazing global logistic network that can apparently ferry a virus all over the world in about 3 months. Lab safety has to be beyond question. I imagine we'll see some monumental changes in Chinese lab safety after this, independent of whether or not they believe it came from a lab.
- corty 5y ago
  > I imagine we'll see some monumental changes in Chinese lab safety after this, independent of whether or not they believe it came from a lab. No, we won't. That would be the party admitting it was wrong before, which can never happen outside of a coup.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    The party are many things, many of them bad. But they do not like global pandemics. And I expect many of them are quite elderly (eg, Xi Jingping is 68) and feel personally threatened by exotic new diseases. I reckon they'll act.
corty 5y ago
I would argue that there is a huge difference regarding the improvements in safety measures, depending on whether there is the suspicion or the proof of a lab leak. With just the suspicion of a lab leak, there will always be half-measures because of researchers arguing that you are needlessly tying their hands. And there will always be people who believe them, either because they trust those researchers or because they don't want to spend any more money on safety measures. With proof of a lab leak, nobody would listen to researchers' complaints about those strict safety measures anymore. And having seen the huge cost to society, the evaluation of cost and benefits of that research and its safety will be seen in a totally different light. Also, having someone to blame would imho rally sceptics and deniers behind a common narrative. There would be a common external threat and a common enemy to fight, meaning that the means of that fight like travel restrictions and vaccinations would be more readily accepted.
- patentatt 5y ago
  I see you’re first point, that’s probably accurate. But I think on the second point the common enemy to fight would quickly become the entire country of China (in the eyes of many in the US at least), and there would be massive public pressure for war, or antagonism of some kind (economic, political, social) that could escalate to war. And that has the potential to be much more devastating than the pandemic. So I think the first point you make about the merits of increased scrutiny have to be balanced against the dangers of potential war.
  - corty 5y ago
    We are already at 4 Million fatalities from Corona, with a probably significant unknown number of deaths in third-world countries without proper diagnostics and healthcare. Vaccinations are still going too slow and will take another 5 years to even possibly cover all humans. Within that timeframe, it is quite possible to approach WW2 levels of fatalities (around 80 mio.). Secondary damage due to hospitals being overwhelmed, imploding economies and hunger will come on top and are still not easy to estimate. It would be appaling and immoral to let something of this magnitude go unanswered. If someone is responsible, they need to feel the consequences. Because the consequences of not reacting to something like this, and it getting out later, are far more serious and devastating: That would in one stroke wipe out all legitimacy of involved governments, leading to revolutions all over the west (and quite possibly the rest of the world).
ctrlp 5y ago
There are non-kinetic forms of warfare that may very well be appropriate if indeed this was a lab leak and cover-up. If it is proven tomorrow to be the case that the virus emerged from WIV, do you think it's appropriate to just let it go? Even if it was pure negligence the cover-up itself and the hiding of the epidemic before it became pandemic could be considered an act of war by countries affected.
- patentatt 5y ago
  I agree it could be considered an act of war, which is why cooler heads on all sides may have decided to downplay, distract, and deny that that’s what happened. War between China and the rest of the world (which we all know means the US as far as war goes) would be devastating for humanity.
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    There are non-kinetic forms of warfare [0]. At least, the PLA believes there are. These are tactics to win without physically fighting. Many believe China is already engaged in non-kinetic war with the U.S. (economic and information). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_warfares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_warfares
- tzs 5y ago
  Wuhan is a large city with a big foreign presence. The US, the UK, South Korea, and France have consulates generals or consulates there. That places severe limits on just how effectively an epidemic in Wuhan can be covered up.
  - ctrlp 5y ago
    Not if the major players on both sides are invested in the cover-up. Are you arguing the CCP is not very effective at cover-ups? That would be reassuring if true.
notacoward 5y ago
> Let’s hypothesize that we find out tomorrow irrefutable evidence for this theory. What does it change? The most likely outcome would not be greater transparency or control over how such research is conducted. More likely it will move into the shadows, in military labs whose very existence is shrouded in secrecy. That's not just speculation, either. It already happened with biowarfare in the USSR and USA and probably elsewhere during most of my lifetime. Do people not remember these issues being discussed in the context of destroying the last smallpox samples? Or the anthrax scare(s)? Or the Reston "Hot Zone" incident(s)?
tzs 5y ago
I'd expect that a lot of countries would not want to look too deeply into blaming someone because once you've blamed someone the topic of damages come up. Damages are usually based on some notion of reasonable behavior on the part of the damaged party. If the damaged party behaves unreasonably and that increases the damages they suffer the negligent party usually does not have to pay the extra damages. I think a lot of countries look at this, realize that at best they can make the case that China is responsible for 5-15% of their damages, realize that their political opponents will spin that as the current government being responsible for 85-95% of their loss, and decide it is better to just move on.

kongin 5y ago

> I’d also add that it’s irrelevant. Let’s hypothesize that we find out tomorrow irrefutable evidence for this theory. What does it change? Demanding reparations from China for their WMD program going out of control would be a good start. Then criminal cases against everyone involved in the West who approved something so boneheadedly evil and pointless.

nso 5y ago
Research on viruses happens a lot of places, it doesn't mean it's being weaponized.
shlant 5y ago
do you think that live virus research including gain-of-function serves no purpose whatsoever other than for WMD's? It's just "evil and pointless"?
GuB-42 5y ago
That's a good way to start WWIII. WWII started like that. To make things simple, countries who lost WWI were destabilized and reparations were a big reason. It promoted the raise of nationalist, revengeful leaders like Hitler and Mussolini. You know the rest. They carefully avoided making the same mistake after WWII.
- titovodka 5y ago
  Avoiding confrontation with evil will only allow evil to prevail. The only reason the US hasn’t gotten after china is because of the economic/supply chain ties and the implication of the US gov itself.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  This is an oversimplification to the point of being just untrue.
michaelmrose 5y ago
There is a fundamental difference between developing a biological weapon and a leak of a pathogen being analyzed as part of research program. There is absolutely as far as I know no reason to believe that covid is a biological weapon. Such a virus in fact would be an awful weapon. It acts very slowly relative to any evolving conflict with someone who has ample access to weapons that act of minutes and hours vs months and years. It is near impossible to broadly vaccinate your own population without telegraphing your intent to act and probably leaking your vaccine and may mutate beyond your ability to control it and damage your own population. It is like being in an armed standoff in a building full of soldiers from each side and "attacking" the enemy by setting fire to the building you are all in. A virus is a weapon of terror not war. It is unfit for purpose.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  There is no reason to suppose that, if Sars-Cov2 originated at WIV that it was NOT part of a bioweapons program simply considering the tight integration of the PLA with all forms of research deemed of national interest in China. It's certainly not evidence AGAINST there being a bioweapons angle to Sars-Cov2 (if it emerged from WIV) that the PLA is involved (as it has been documented it is)[0][1]. [0] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/16/chinese-maj-gen-chen-wei-takes-leading-role-in-cor/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/16/chinese-maj... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02523-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02523-x
- patentatt 5y ago
  I don’t want to argue it is a weapon, but just playing devils advocate here … the pandemic has been far more destabilizing to democracies in the west than autocracies. Unilateral, heavy-handed action is effective at combating pandemics. And it’s not inconceivable that some bigwigs in Beijing could see some population culling, especially in the more rural regions, as not a terrible thing. And it’s good cover to argue that it wasn’t an intentional weapon if it affects your own population too. I don’t believe it was an intentional release of a weapon, but if it were it wouldn’t be as self-sabotaging as it may first seem is all.

roenxi 5y ago

The takeaway in any event is it could have come from a lab. That should be enough to trigger some action around biosecurity. There is no reason to think this won't happen again in our lifetimes. We have this amazing global logistic network that can apparently ferry a virus all over the world in about 3 months. Lab safety has to be beyond question. I imagine we'll see some monumental changes in Chinese lab safety after this, independent of whether or not they believe it came from a lab.

corty 5y ago
> I imagine we'll see some monumental changes in Chinese lab safety after this, independent of whether or not they believe it came from a lab. No, we won't. That would be the party admitting it was wrong before, which can never happen outside of a coup.
- roenxi 5y ago
  The party are many things, many of them bad. But they do not like global pandemics. And I expect many of them are quite elderly (eg, Xi Jingping is 68) and feel personally threatened by exotic new diseases. I reckon they'll act.

corty 5y ago

I would argue that there is a huge difference regarding the improvements in safety measures, depending on whether there is the suspicion or the proof of a lab leak. With just the suspicion of a lab leak, there will always be half-measures because of researchers arguing that you are needlessly tying their hands. And there will always be people who believe them, either because they trust those researchers or because they don't want to spend any more money on safety measures. With proof of a lab leak, nobody would listen to researchers' complaints about those strict safety measures anymore. And having seen the huge cost to society, the evaluation of cost and benefits of that research and its safety will be seen in a totally different light. Also, having someone to blame would imho rally sceptics and deniers behind a common narrative. There would be a common external threat and a common enemy to fight, meaning that the means of that fight like travel restrictions and vaccinations would be more readily accepted.

patentatt 5y ago
I see you’re first point, that’s probably accurate. But I think on the second point the common enemy to fight would quickly become the entire country of China (in the eyes of many in the US at least), and there would be massive public pressure for war, or antagonism of some kind (economic, political, social) that could escalate to war. And that has the potential to be much more devastating than the pandemic. So I think the first point you make about the merits of increased scrutiny have to be balanced against the dangers of potential war.
- corty 5y ago
  We are already at 4 Million fatalities from Corona, with a probably significant unknown number of deaths in third-world countries without proper diagnostics and healthcare. Vaccinations are still going too slow and will take another 5 years to even possibly cover all humans. Within that timeframe, it is quite possible to approach WW2 levels of fatalities (around 80 mio.). Secondary damage due to hospitals being overwhelmed, imploding economies and hunger will come on top and are still not easy to estimate. It would be appaling and immoral to let something of this magnitude go unanswered. If someone is responsible, they need to feel the consequences. Because the consequences of not reacting to something like this, and it getting out later, are far more serious and devastating: That would in one stroke wipe out all legitimacy of involved governments, leading to revolutions all over the west (and quite possibly the rest of the world).

ctrlp 5y ago

There are non-kinetic forms of warfare that may very well be appropriate if indeed this was a lab leak and cover-up. If it is proven tomorrow to be the case that the virus emerged from WIV, do you think it's appropriate to just let it go? Even if it was pure negligence the cover-up itself and the hiding of the epidemic before it became pandemic could be considered an act of war by countries affected.

patentatt 5y ago
I agree it could be considered an act of war, which is why cooler heads on all sides may have decided to downplay, distract, and deny that that’s what happened. War between China and the rest of the world (which we all know means the US as far as war goes) would be devastating for humanity.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  There are non-kinetic forms of warfare [0]. At least, the PLA believes there are. These are tactics to win without physically fighting. Many believe China is already engaged in non-kinetic war with the U.S. (economic and information). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_warfares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_warfares
tzs 5y ago
Wuhan is a large city with a big foreign presence. The US, the UK, South Korea, and France have consulates generals or consulates there. That places severe limits on just how effectively an epidemic in Wuhan can be covered up.
- ctrlp 5y ago
  Not if the major players on both sides are invested in the cover-up. Are you arguing the CCP is not very effective at cover-ups? That would be reassuring if true.

notacoward 5y ago

> Let’s hypothesize that we find out tomorrow irrefutable evidence for this theory. What does it change? The most likely outcome would not be greater transparency or control over how such research is conducted. More likely it will move into the shadows, in military labs whose very existence is shrouded in secrecy. That's not just speculation, either. It already happened with biowarfare in the USSR and USA and probably elsewhere during most of my lifetime. Do people not remember these issues being discussed in the context of destroying the last smallpox samples? Or the anthrax scare(s)? Or the Reston "Hot Zone" incident(s)?

tzs 5y ago

I'd expect that a lot of countries would not want to look too deeply into blaming someone because once you've blamed someone the topic of damages come up. Damages are usually based on some notion of reasonable behavior on the part of the damaged party. If the damaged party behaves unreasonably and that increases the damages they suffer the negligent party usually does not have to pay the extra damages. I think a lot of countries look at this, realize that at best they can make the case that China is responsible for 5-15% of their damages, realize that their political opponents will spin that as the current government being responsible for 85-95% of their loss, and decide it is better to just move on.