5 ms·

It doesn't really matter. Either way we need an international oversight for such labs like we have for nuclear weapons. Second we need to focus on how we will

It doesn't really matter. Either way we need an international oversight for such labs like we have for nuclear weapons. Second we need to focus on how we will prevent the next pandemic irregardless if it comes from a lab or animal to human transmission. Most important is to contain it and provide the tools for the global community to respond such as gen sequencing and money for the affected area. If a state would receive funds and there was a very clear strategy they would be less likely to hide such an outbreak. The biggest issue I see it how do we get something like this setup without there being issues like we see with the WHO. The US managed to turn any trust this organization had into the trash (although the US had the biggest influence in it) letting the countries that always had doubts about it get their confirmation.

disambiguation 5y ago
> It doesn't really matter. Uhh, it matters a lot. an important part of effective oversight programs is accountability .. which requires knowing if the virus was fucking man-made. Also the WHO lost any credibility it still had when it started bending over for China.
- oliwarner 5y ago
  It doesn't matter. The international rules you want to set against (eg) gain-of-function research, or rules on moving research abroad to bypass local ethics requirements can be created without knowing what caused SARS-CoV-2. I don't see any benefit to society trying to punish people for it. It's a colossal waste of focus. Just stop it happening next time.
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    An important measure of the efficacy of rules is how much people follow / break the rules. What do you propose we do if we catch someone not following the rules?
    - oliwarner 5y ago
      Saying we could find the person who mixed this stuff together, accidentally dropped it out a window, whatever… What jurisdiction do you suppose "we" have to prosecute someone we catch in China? Is what they did even illegal in China? Because China seems fairly happy continuing as if there were no crime. If you want to take it further than that, you're going to unravel decades of every country on the planet shipping their manufacturing off to China, because while they make everything we need, sanctions just hurt us. There's rarely a second hub we can use to provide those goods. If you want this to be illegal in China in the future, you might have more luck. Getting the people who provide money for this sort of work (which is much more international) to adhere to ethics rules wouldn't be a bad thing. But while we're still in this, talking about hunting down exactly where this leaked from so we can make an example of somebody, seems both unrealistic and ineffective. Wear a mask, get your jabs. Focus on what's important in your life.
      - disambiguation 5y ago
        this is a bizarrely fatalistic and defeatist perspective you may think you're being a realist, but really it just sounds like you're giving up because it's easier
        oliwarner 5y ago
        Thanks for dismissing what I said without engaging with any of it. I've told you what's actually possible in any measurable way to make the future safer, and that largely involves limiting how people spend their money on research. Long term diversification of manufacturing wouldn't be a silly idea either, for many reasons. But if you can see a way to actually achieve what you want, please share it. Your little quips only amount to pathetic sabre rattling, wasting everybody's time and most importantly, distracting people from what we all need to do to get through this.
        disambiguation 5y ago
        i;m sorry you took that personally, it wasn't meant to be. but it's really up to you to separate your own ego from your arguments, i can't be held accountable for hurt feelings also i don't think i was being dismissive, i correctly characterized your argument. if you believe that accountability is neither possible nor effective (in this case? in all cases?) then there's really nothing to argue. I can't change the mind of someone that doesnt want to have their mind changed. i do think think your comment about improved reporting and scrutiny over funding is interesting. because we are still funding the wuhan lab. and we did have reports of gain of function from EcoHealth Alliance back in 2018 that the NIH is denying. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-risky-virus-research-in-wuhan https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-r... who watches the watchers? at the end of the day, accountability is an unavoidable solution if we want to have any hope of a fair and just system. or, we can be fatalist-deafetists that think such a system is impossible and we just have to accept whatever disasters happen to us.
yostrovs 5y ago
There is no international oversight of nuclear weapons.
- zinekeller 5y ago
  Very good note. There should be (in the sense that treaties were signed), just not that those treaties are ratified by important countries (and therefore enforced). IAEA is weaker than WHO (relatively speaking), as I know the only reduction treaties (it's a series) that are successful is between US and Russia (nuclear arms successor of the Soviet Union), which is only two of nine who openly have nuclear weapons, not to mention the (around) five alleged-but-never-admitted nuclear states, and many more that may have dormant technical capability that can be used when it really gone bad. (edited because I forgot about New START)
  - indymike 5y ago
    "International oversight" implies there is a powerful enough entity to impose oversight. Even North Korea is powerful enough to refuse international oversight.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > IAEA is weaker than WHO (relatively speaking) The problems tackled by WHO are mostly cooperative, while the ones tackled by the IAEA are mainly competitive. It's easier to get consensus on subjects where everyone stands to benefit than in subjects where everyone is looking to take power away from you.
tinus_hn 5y ago
It’s so unimportant mr Fauci was prepared to lie that he had nothing to do with it.

disambiguation 5y ago

> It doesn't really matter. Uhh, it matters a lot. an important part of effective oversight programs is accountability .. which requires knowing if the virus was fucking man-made. Also the WHO lost any credibility it still had when it started bending over for China.

oliwarner 5y ago
It doesn't matter. The international rules you want to set against (eg) gain-of-function research, or rules on moving research abroad to bypass local ethics requirements can be created without knowing what caused SARS-CoV-2. I don't see any benefit to society trying to punish people for it. It's a colossal waste of focus. Just stop it happening next time.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  An important measure of the efficacy of rules is how much people follow / break the rules. What do you propose we do if we catch someone not following the rules?
  - oliwarner 5y ago
    Saying we could find the person who mixed this stuff together, accidentally dropped it out a window, whatever… What jurisdiction do you suppose "we" have to prosecute someone we catch in China? Is what they did even illegal in China? Because China seems fairly happy continuing as if there were no crime. If you want to take it further than that, you're going to unravel decades of every country on the planet shipping their manufacturing off to China, because while they make everything we need, sanctions just hurt us. There's rarely a second hub we can use to provide those goods. If you want this to be illegal in China in the future, you might have more luck. Getting the people who provide money for this sort of work (which is much more international) to adhere to ethics rules wouldn't be a bad thing. But while we're still in this, talking about hunting down exactly where this leaked from so we can make an example of somebody, seems both unrealistic and ineffective. Wear a mask, get your jabs. Focus on what's important in your life.
    - disambiguation 5y ago
      this is a bizarrely fatalistic and defeatist perspective you may think you're being a realist, but really it just sounds like you're giving up because it's easier
      - oliwarner 5y ago
        Thanks for dismissing what I said without engaging with any of it. I've told you what's actually possible in any measurable way to make the future safer, and that largely involves limiting how people spend their money on research. Long term diversification of manufacturing wouldn't be a silly idea either, for many reasons. But if you can see a way to actually achieve what you want, please share it. Your little quips only amount to pathetic sabre rattling, wasting everybody's time and most importantly, distracting people from what we all need to do to get through this.
        disambiguation 5y ago
        i;m sorry you took that personally, it wasn't meant to be. but it's really up to you to separate your own ego from your arguments, i can't be held accountable for hurt feelings also i don't think i was being dismissive, i correctly characterized your argument. if you believe that accountability is neither possible nor effective (in this case? in all cases?) then there's really nothing to argue. I can't change the mind of someone that doesnt want to have their mind changed. i do think think your comment about improved reporting and scrutiny over funding is interesting. because we are still funding the wuhan lab. and we did have reports of gain of function from EcoHealth Alliance back in 2018 that the NIH is denying. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-risky-virus-research-in-wuhan https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/nih-admits-funding-r... who watches the watchers? at the end of the day, accountability is an unavoidable solution if we want to have any hope of a fair and just system. or, we can be fatalist-deafetists that think such a system is impossible and we just have to accept whatever disasters happen to us.

yostrovs 5y ago

There is no international oversight of nuclear weapons.

zinekeller 5y ago
Very good note. There should be (in the sense that treaties were signed), just not that those treaties are ratified by important countries (and therefore enforced). IAEA is weaker than WHO (relatively speaking), as I know the only reduction treaties (it's a series) that are successful is between US and Russia (nuclear arms successor of the Soviet Union), which is only two of nine who openly have nuclear weapons, not to mention the (around) five alleged-but-never-admitted nuclear states, and many more that may have dormant technical capability that can be used when it really gone bad. (edited because I forgot about New START)
- indymike 5y ago
  "International oversight" implies there is a powerful enough entity to impose oversight. Even North Korea is powerful enough to refuse international oversight.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > IAEA is weaker than WHO (relatively speaking) The problems tackled by WHO are mostly cooperative, while the ones tackled by the IAEA are mainly competitive. It's easier to get consensus on subjects where everyone stands to benefit than in subjects where everyone is looking to take power away from you.

tinus_hn 5y ago

It’s so unimportant mr Fauci was prepared to lie that he had nothing to do with it.