4 ms·

Because it's almost inherently conspiracy fodder, true or not. It tickles the part of human psychology that looks for threat agents, rather than just threats.

Because it's almost inherently conspiracy fodder, true or not. It tickles the part of human psychology that looks for threat agents, rather than just threats. Lots of us here on the more analytical side might have trouble understanding that fully, especially if we relate to Fauci's early 2020 statements which more or less amount to "it doesn't really matter which plausible origin turns out to be the case, either way the task in front of us is to figure out how to mitigate the damage and address the virus." It could have been a lab leak. It could have been (and now looks more likely to have been [0][1]) natural spillover from increasing contact with zoonotic reservoirs. What's the difference? The answer to that question on a practical level is re-thinking safety protocols for related research (and perhaps a conversation about the risks of conducting viral research vs the risks of viral ignorance). On a less practical level, though, the answer is that it prompts inhabiting a narrative where they key issue is human threat agents. The irony is that many of the people who choose that as the most important thing to pay attention seem slower to consider how human threat agents might use that narrative. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/18/coronavirus-origins-wuhan-market-animals-science-journal/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/18/coronavirus... [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/why-many-scientists-say-unlikely-sars-cov-2-originated-lab-leak https://www.science.org/content/article/why-many-scientists-...

zimbatm 5y ago
Imagine if a policeman was saying the same thing about a crime; why investigate, finding the culprit is only conspiracy fodder, let's only take care of the victims. Not investigating, and hiding the truth is what gives room for conspiracies to grow. Also how can we better understand and prevent pandemics whithout understanding where they come from. Wasn't the coronavirus research lab founded on that premise?
- akavel 5y ago
  I don't find the parallel good. Trying to invent a better one, I thought I'd say the coronavirus situation is IMO more like a question of whether, say, some particular volcano's explosion was natural, or human-induced. As such, one can either focus on generally being more prepared against volcano explosions, or focus on trying to find a person among volcano researchers and tourists who may have done something to tickle the volcano to explode. I mean, it's sure also not a perfect analogy; but how I see it, focusing on preparedness and handling of a situation that does happen naturally from time to time for sure, sounds to me like a sensible choice to focus effort into. With that said, totally, if there's some possibility it might have been human-induced, it makes sense to try and track and prevent it in the future; thing is, me personally, and I would risk theorizing that also many other people, am strongly afraid of such approach too quickly and too easily turning into a witch-hunt, anti-XYZ propaganda, and stirring hate by unscrupulous people - with scapegoating seemingly socially much easier to turn towards, than tiresome and "boring" epidemologic preparedness and discipline.
  - czzr 5y ago
    A better analogy is a forest fire - perhaps a human triggered it, maybe it was lightening. Whichever caused this specific fire, you cannot build a fire prevention strategy solely around stopping people lighting fires.
echelon 5y ago
> Because it's almost inherently conspiracy fodder, true or not. No it's not! Reasonably minded persons consider this entirely plausible. The way the conversation is being actively steered away from this topic is concerning. > It could have been a lab leak. It could have been (and now looks more likely to have been [0][1]) natural spillover from increasing contact with zoonotic reservoirs. What's the difference? There's a huge difference. Each scenario has different lessons to learn, culpability, etc.
- wwweston 5y ago
  > No it's not! Reasonably minded persons consider this entirely plausible. I didn't say it was implausible. In fact, I have at least one sentence in my comment that acknowledges it is plausible to entertain. It doesn't appear to be plausible as a conclusion (see the two articles I linked, which do include sources who initially wanted to explore the lab leak theory), but it was plausible enough as a hypothesis. What I said is that even if it is the truth, it evokes conspiracy-oriented thinking in a specific way, and elaborated on the dynamic. > Each scenario has different lessons to learn, culpability, etc. "Culpability" -- thank you for reinforcing my point about human threat agents. And also regarding "lessons to learn", or as I put it, managing risks in viral research vs the risks of not doing viral research... which of course is a conversation that goes on anyway.
  - krinchan 5y ago
    I have to agree. The desperation to “blame China” seems to be driven by people with fantasies about going to war with China. Not even economic war with China beyond current tensions is possible without completely wrecking the economy in ways that will take all of us but the Bezos of the world down. Very little of this seems grounded in reality or good faith desire to know the truth of the matter.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >There's a huge difference. Each scenario has different lessons to learn, culpability, etc. Perspective matters. Yes, learning to not have it happen again is an ideal thing. However, from Fauci's point of view at the time and his role, the how/why absolutely didn't matter as he stated.

zimbatm 5y ago

Imagine if a policeman was saying the same thing about a crime; why investigate, finding the culprit is only conspiracy fodder, let's only take care of the victims. Not investigating, and hiding the truth is what gives room for conspiracies to grow. Also how can we better understand and prevent pandemics whithout understanding where they come from. Wasn't the coronavirus research lab founded on that premise?

akavel 5y ago
I don't find the parallel good. Trying to invent a better one, I thought I'd say the coronavirus situation is IMO more like a question of whether, say, some particular volcano's explosion was natural, or human-induced. As such, one can either focus on generally being more prepared against volcano explosions, or focus on trying to find a person among volcano researchers and tourists who may have done something to tickle the volcano to explode. I mean, it's sure also not a perfect analogy; but how I see it, focusing on preparedness and handling of a situation that does happen naturally from time to time for sure, sounds to me like a sensible choice to focus effort into. With that said, totally, if there's some possibility it might have been human-induced, it makes sense to try and track and prevent it in the future; thing is, me personally, and I would risk theorizing that also many other people, am strongly afraid of such approach too quickly and too easily turning into a witch-hunt, anti-XYZ propaganda, and stirring hate by unscrupulous people - with scapegoating seemingly socially much easier to turn towards, than tiresome and "boring" epidemologic preparedness and discipline.
- czzr 5y ago
  A better analogy is a forest fire - perhaps a human triggered it, maybe it was lightening. Whichever caused this specific fire, you cannot build a fire prevention strategy solely around stopping people lighting fires.

echelon 5y ago

> Because it's almost inherently conspiracy fodder, true or not. No it's not! Reasonably minded persons consider this entirely plausible. The way the conversation is being actively steered away from this topic is concerning. > It could have been a lab leak. It could have been (and now looks more likely to have been [0][1]) natural spillover from increasing contact with zoonotic reservoirs. What's the difference? There's a huge difference. Each scenario has different lessons to learn, culpability, etc.

wwweston 5y ago
> No it's not! Reasonably minded persons consider this entirely plausible. I didn't say it was implausible. In fact, I have at least one sentence in my comment that acknowledges it is plausible to entertain. It doesn't appear to be plausible as a conclusion (see the two articles I linked, which do include sources who initially wanted to explore the lab leak theory), but it was plausible enough as a hypothesis. What I said is that even if it is the truth, it evokes conspiracy-oriented thinking in a specific way, and elaborated on the dynamic. > Each scenario has different lessons to learn, culpability, etc. "Culpability" -- thank you for reinforcing my point about human threat agents. And also regarding "lessons to learn", or as I put it, managing risks in viral research vs the risks of not doing viral research... which of course is a conversation that goes on anyway.
- krinchan 5y ago
  I have to agree. The desperation to “blame China” seems to be driven by people with fantasies about going to war with China. Not even economic war with China beyond current tensions is possible without completely wrecking the economy in ways that will take all of us but the Bezos of the world down. Very little of this seems grounded in reality or good faith desire to know the truth of the matter.
dylan604 5y ago
>There's a huge difference. Each scenario has different lessons to learn, culpability, etc. Perspective matters. Yes, learning to not have it happen again is an ideal thing. However, from Fauci's point of view at the time and his role, the how/why absolutely didn't matter as he stated.