46 ms·

> I can see that the idea that it was a lab leak could be _reassuring_ to people; To me its less reassuring. It tells me that us humans actively sought out pa

> I can see that the idea that it was a lab leak could be _reassuring_ to people; To me its less reassuring. It tells me that us humans actively sought out pathogens in spaces where it was unlikely that humans would encounter them otherwise. Then took those pathogens to a lab, experimented on them a bit perhaps making them more deadly, have shitty security protocols for the experiment, and thereby releasing them accidentally into a large population. A lab leak makes it our fault and speaks to the stupidity of us humans. A zoological origin makes it natures fault. I’d much rather nature kill me by accident (besides I think our odds are better).

rsynnott 5y ago
Sure, but all of that is _addressable_, via improved standards. That is, if one buys the lab leak theory, it's practical to stop it happening again. But if it was normal zoonotic transmission, well, there are ways to make that somewhat less likely, but it will happen again; diseases make the jump from time to time, and realistically this avenue for new diseases can't be shut down.
- kcplate 5y ago
  Improved standards may help some, but that’s not the real issue. If I, a virologist, enter a remote cave system that no other human would likely ever enter specifically looking for an undiscovered virus to study, I have already tipped the scales significantly to the likelihood that the unknown virus will infect humans by a huge scale over nature. Then, by experimentation, I make said virus even more infectious or deadly…I have even further increased that likelihood of it infecting humans by a huge factor. Then, by performing that experiment in an area with a dense 11M population, I have further increased that likelihood of human transmission so far beyond where it was when that virus sat in that remote cave and had a unlikely path to humans. So you better hope like hell that your lab security is bulletproof, because you have removed virtually every layer of protection that nature has provided us humans from the bug.

rsynnott 5y ago

Sure, but all of that is _addressable_, via improved standards. That is, if one buys the lab leak theory, it's practical to stop it happening again. But if it was normal zoonotic transmission, well, there are ways to make that somewhat less likely, but it will happen again; diseases make the jump from time to time, and realistically this avenue for new diseases can't be shut down.

kcplate 5y ago
Improved standards may help some, but that’s not the real issue. If I, a virologist, enter a remote cave system that no other human would likely ever enter specifically looking for an undiscovered virus to study, I have already tipped the scales significantly to the likelihood that the unknown virus will infect humans by a huge scale over nature. Then, by experimentation, I make said virus even more infectious or deadly…I have even further increased that likelihood of it infecting humans by a huge factor. Then, by performing that experiment in an area with a dense 11M population, I have further increased that likelihood of human transmission so far beyond where it was when that virus sat in that remote cave and had a unlikely path to humans. So you better hope like hell that your lab security is bulletproof, because you have removed virtually every layer of protection that nature has provided us humans from the bug.