5 ms·

"If you find that [a government] has lost, destroyed, or failed to preserve any evidence whose contents or quality are material to the issues in this case, then

"If you find that [a government] has lost, destroyed, or failed to preserve any evidence whose contents or quality are material to the issues in this case, then you may draw an inference unfavorable to the [government]." West Virg. Jury Inst. 5.03

bsder 5y ago
Okay. China created it. Now what? I have yet to see anyone explain what they would do with the result that is somehow beneficial. Does knowing this help fight it? Does it help stop it? Does it help treat it? Does it help stop the spread? Let's say China even INTENTIONALLY did it. Then what? You gonna invade China? Exactly how are you gonna make someone like Apple pull out of China when they should already be doing that NOW for other reasons? I regard the "lab leak hypothesis" like I regard news about celebrities--worthless and unactionable. It's simply a "boogeyman" to focus hate to create the "in group" and the "out group" for propaganda purposes.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  You seem very convinced of your position. But there's a whole world of options in between "unactionable" and "invade China."
  - bobwaycott 5y ago
    Such as? Assuming the best, the parent asked a bunch of questions (in an admittedly dismissive and argumentative way) to try and invite some kind of response that explains what China gets out of it, and what the world does next if we could somehow prove China created the original virus. So … let’s assume China created it. Now what? What’s the next step and response if it was an accident? What’s the next step and response if it was intentional? Edit: I’m asking because I’m genuinely curious about what the next step would be. I mean, it’d satisfy my curiosity and interest in knowing the cause and origin. But then I want to figure out what the world response should be.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      If you honestly dispute that there are options in foreign affairs between "do absolutely nothing" and "full scale military invasion," then our worldviews are so far apart that I don't think fighting about it on the Internet will be a good use of time for either of us.
      - bobwaycott 5y ago
        You seem to be grossly misinterpreting my comment. I’ve said nothing at all to suggest there are no options in foreign affairs between "do absolutely nothing" and "full scale military invasion”. Where are you even getting that message? I asked what you thought those options are since you seem to have some opinions. Or at least a few of them. Specifically. I don’t see how I said anything that indicates I’m trying to fight on the internet about our worldviews.
        stale2002 5y ago
        > I’ve said nothing at all to suggest there are no options Great. So you agree that there are other options in between do nothing, and an invasion. Both you, and everyone else, agrees on that idea. So that means that you personally can think of some in between those two extremes.
    - xony 5y ago
    - awb 5y ago
      There are all kinds of forms of cooperation between countries: economic, political, financial, scientific, legal, regulatory, transportation, trade, military, etc. One option instead of full scale invasion is to cut back or attach strings to some of those forms of cooperation. This happens all the time. In this specific scenario, it might look like: Spend $100M upgrading Wuhan lab security and we won’t indefinitely ban travel from Wuhan Province to the US. Or, more aggressively: Shut down the Wuhan lab or we will release tons of hacked data about corruption in the government. Not saying that these are smart options, but you get the idea of the spectrum of options between total absolution and total aggression.
- duxup 5y ago
  > Okay. China created it. Now what? I have yet to see anyone explain what they would do with the result that is somehow beneficial. Assuming that is true. Are you asking what China would have done with the result of researching COVID? Same thing anyone does with research? Or are you asking what we do with the information as to why something bad happened? Same things / reasons we want to know why something bad happened?
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    Also if it did leak from that lab, who funded that work? And how can they be held liable?
    - duxup 5y ago
      Who is they?
      - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
        By the context English if you read it again is that “They” would be the people that funded such work.
- DevKoala 5y ago
  What do you mean it is non-actionable? If it was a lab leak we can determine what conditions lead to the leak and adopt better safety measures. The lab leak was most likely a protocol error and without a collective awareness of the cause, the population cannot push our elected leaders to demand better safety protocols.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    Who is "we"? And if it's a weapons lab, what makes you think China is going to allow geopolitical adversaries to poke around to make a more secure and safer environment? This idea works with countries that can't defend themselves against the West such as Iraq, but it's always backed by an invasion. No such option exists in the case of China, so their sovereignty will remain unsullied.
    - Thorrez 5y ago
      A weapons lab? I could be wrong, but I thought the scientists were doing gain of function research because it helped them get published. If there was an international agreement to stop gain of function research, then that motivation would be gone.
    - MaxfordAndSons 5y ago
      Well, at the least the US could refrain from supplying further funding to the WIV, and any other virology labs.
    - DevKoala 5y ago
      The people of the USA. Apparently, the lab in Wuhan was performing gain of function research with funding from NIH. Now what is up for debate is if that specific research was what led to Covid-19. 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...
- ngc248 5y ago
  The way it is actionable is, that next time when you are. dealing with the CCP, you should not trust their words and proceed with precaution. Another action the world can take is to hold them responsible for actions. This may be in various ways like non co-operation, economic sanctions etc
- usefulcat 5y ago
  Except that it’s not inactionable. If it happened once (accidentally, I’m presuming), it can happen again. It’s not like the Wuhan lab is the only source of such research. So it’s entirely legitimate to question the value of such research, especially if a leak could result in a global pandemic.
  - zeptonix 5y ago
    Yeah... Q: What would happen if we deliberately did everything possible to artificially create the circumstances leading to a pandemic? A: A pandemic Any value of such research SHOULD be questioned.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    That doesn't answer the question about what the West is supposed to do to China should the lab-leak hypothesis be true.
    - wk_end 5y ago
      Well, politically speaking, sanctions would certainly be possible - if not for the virus they (hypothetically) created, then for what would in retrospect look like (in this hypothetical) a clear attempt at a cover-up. That said: it doesn’t even need to go that far - whether the response should be punitive, it doesn’t need to be. The scientific communities in China and the west are collaborative and could negotiate agreements not to do GoF research. US groups were funneling money into China to do GoF research on coronaviruses, which could be stopped.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > what the West is supposed to do to China should the lab-leak hypothesis be true. The west, or society, should use this as evidence of basically not trusting information from the government of china, if it is contradicted by more neutral or western sources, in the future. So, for example, if someone is talking to you personally, and they try to use evidence from that government, and you have other evidence from western sources that contradicts it, you should just laugh in their face. Call them a mean name and ridicule them.
- rhino369 5y ago
  Ban gain of function research because it killed 20 million people? Your logic is like BP saying “hey it doesn’t matter how the oil spill started . . .”
  - zeptonix 5y ago
    It's actually even worse. It's like, "we don't care how the oil spill started, or even if there are oil spills, or even if 'oil' and 'spill' actually have any business being used together, because what use could pointing a finger have?"
  - bsder 5y ago
    > Ban gain of function research because it killed 20 million people? And how do you plan on enforcing this on China? Or on Russia? I'm still waiting for all the armchair geniuses to explain this one to me. You can be ready for when some idiot does this research or not. Those are your options unless you've got some magic way to go to war with nuclear powers that I am unaware of. All banning gain of function research does is leave you unprepared when it happens. Unless you've got a way to enforce this on China, this is unactionable. It's simply propaganda to rile people up. 1) If it was an accident, what are you going to do? If there is anyone sane in the leadership of the lab with knowledge of how this occurred, procedures have already changed. What more do you want them to do? You're NOT going to get a gain-of-function ban without some form of strong coercion. What will it be? 2) If it was intentional (and I see no gain for China if it were), what do you plan to do? You will have to somehow do something to cause actual harm to Chinese leadership. What? China is already guilty of genocide, and all the West does is shrug. Hell, it would almost be better if this were an intentional release if not for all the dead. The emergence of Omicron would demonstrate to the idiots worldwide who thought they could control a virus that the idea is laughable and that the virus will quickly evade whatever you think are your protection measures. And all this ASSUMES that it actually was a lab leak, which the current hypothesis about jumping from mice back to humans decreases the Bayesian prior on dramatically. If Covid can jump that quickly from humans to mice and back, gain of function is suddenly frighteningly common. And the research into gain of function, rather than being banned, needs to be ramped up hard.
- zeptonix 5y ago
  What a sadly modern philosophy... Sure, why should we learn anything from the past? Let's just adjust the past to be whatever's most convenient for today. If it's not convenient at this immediate moment right now, let's just ignore it ever happened. Those millions of people who died unnecessarily? "Boogeyman" "propaganda" for the "out group"?
- jraph 5y ago
  I do think it would be actionable as sibling comments point out, but I would find this knowledge interesting by itself (intellectual curiosity, I think we are at the right place for this). > focus hate That wouldn't be me. I would feel bad for the people who caused the leak (edit to be clear: if this is what happened, not assuming anything here). To be at the origin of such a pandemic spanning multiple years with all the repercussions must be uncomfortable.
  - zeptonix 5y ago
    I think you're likely to be underestimating how psychopathic / purely driven by their research to the exclusion of all other factors these people are likely to be. You're probably assuming they have a normal / social / reasonable level of empathy, which is an assumption you're extending them, not necessarily one they deserve.
    - jraph 5y ago
      I don't know and I don't assume anything. I was only talking about my own curiosity on the origins of the covid. Though I haven't seriously looked into any particular thing about this recently, including today.
- steve76 5y ago
RandomBK 5y ago
That may work for domestic public opinion, but getting any international sanctions to stick on China would require a lot more than circumstantial "they won't let us investigate" evidence. International "law" (if such a thing truly exists in practice) is wonky, and rarely based on nuanced views or established facts. Even domestically, that above quote only applies in specific cases - civil cases, or criminal cases where it can be proven evidence was actually destroyed. I'm not personally aware of clear evidence of bad-faith destruction of evidence right now on China's part. China's refusal to allow a third-party investigation would then be more similar to pleading the 5th, something even US courts are prevented from punishing.

bsder 5y ago

Okay. China created it. Now what? I have yet to see anyone explain what they would do with the result that is somehow beneficial. Does knowing this help fight it? Does it help stop it? Does it help treat it? Does it help stop the spread? Let's say China even INTENTIONALLY did it. Then what? You gonna invade China? Exactly how are you gonna make someone like Apple pull out of China when they should already be doing that NOW for other reasons? I regard the "lab leak hypothesis" like I regard news about celebrities--worthless and unactionable. It's simply a "boogeyman" to focus hate to create the "in group" and the "out group" for propaganda purposes.

torstenvl 5y ago
You seem very convinced of your position. But there's a whole world of options in between "unactionable" and "invade China."
- bobwaycott 5y ago
  Such as? Assuming the best, the parent asked a bunch of questions (in an admittedly dismissive and argumentative way) to try and invite some kind of response that explains what China gets out of it, and what the world does next if we could somehow prove China created the original virus. So … let’s assume China created it. Now what? What’s the next step and response if it was an accident? What’s the next step and response if it was intentional? Edit: I’m asking because I’m genuinely curious about what the next step would be. I mean, it’d satisfy my curiosity and interest in knowing the cause and origin. But then I want to figure out what the world response should be.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    If you honestly dispute that there are options in foreign affairs between "do absolutely nothing" and "full scale military invasion," then our worldviews are so far apart that I don't think fighting about it on the Internet will be a good use of time for either of us.
    - bobwaycott 5y ago
      You seem to be grossly misinterpreting my comment. I’ve said nothing at all to suggest there are no options in foreign affairs between "do absolutely nothing" and "full scale military invasion”. Where are you even getting that message? I asked what you thought those options are since you seem to have some opinions. Or at least a few of them. Specifically. I don’t see how I said anything that indicates I’m trying to fight on the internet about our worldviews.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > I’ve said nothing at all to suggest there are no options Great. So you agree that there are other options in between do nothing, and an invasion. Both you, and everyone else, agrees on that idea. So that means that you personally can think of some in between those two extremes.
  - xony 5y ago
  - awb 5y ago
    There are all kinds of forms of cooperation between countries: economic, political, financial, scientific, legal, regulatory, transportation, trade, military, etc. One option instead of full scale invasion is to cut back or attach strings to some of those forms of cooperation. This happens all the time. In this specific scenario, it might look like: Spend $100M upgrading Wuhan lab security and we won’t indefinitely ban travel from Wuhan Province to the US. Or, more aggressively: Shut down the Wuhan lab or we will release tons of hacked data about corruption in the government. Not saying that these are smart options, but you get the idea of the spectrum of options between total absolution and total aggression.
duxup 5y ago
> Okay. China created it. Now what? I have yet to see anyone explain what they would do with the result that is somehow beneficial. Assuming that is true. Are you asking what China would have done with the result of researching COVID? Same thing anyone does with research? Or are you asking what we do with the information as to why something bad happened? Same things / reasons we want to know why something bad happened?
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Also if it did leak from that lab, who funded that work? And how can they be held liable?
  - duxup 5y ago
    Who is they?
    - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
      By the context English if you read it again is that “They” would be the people that funded such work.
DevKoala 5y ago
What do you mean it is non-actionable? If it was a lab leak we can determine what conditions lead to the leak and adopt better safety measures. The lab leak was most likely a protocol error and without a collective awareness of the cause, the population cannot push our elected leaders to demand better safety protocols.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  Who is "we"? And if it's a weapons lab, what makes you think China is going to allow geopolitical adversaries to poke around to make a more secure and safer environment? This idea works with countries that can't defend themselves against the West such as Iraq, but it's always backed by an invasion. No such option exists in the case of China, so their sovereignty will remain unsullied.
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    A weapons lab? I could be wrong, but I thought the scientists were doing gain of function research because it helped them get published. If there was an international agreement to stop gain of function research, then that motivation would be gone.
  - MaxfordAndSons 5y ago
    Well, at the least the US could refrain from supplying further funding to the WIV, and any other virology labs.
  - DevKoala 5y ago
    The people of the USA. Apparently, the lab in Wuhan was performing gain of function research with funding from NIH. Now what is up for debate is if that specific research was what led to Covid-19. 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...
ngc248 5y ago
The way it is actionable is, that next time when you are. dealing with the CCP, you should not trust their words and proceed with precaution. Another action the world can take is to hold them responsible for actions. This may be in various ways like non co-operation, economic sanctions etc
usefulcat 5y ago
Except that it’s not inactionable. If it happened once (accidentally, I’m presuming), it can happen again. It’s not like the Wuhan lab is the only source of such research. So it’s entirely legitimate to question the value of such research, especially if a leak could result in a global pandemic.
- zeptonix 5y ago
  Yeah... Q: What would happen if we deliberately did everything possible to artificially create the circumstances leading to a pandemic? A: A pandemic Any value of such research SHOULD be questioned.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  That doesn't answer the question about what the West is supposed to do to China should the lab-leak hypothesis be true.
  - wk_end 5y ago
    Well, politically speaking, sanctions would certainly be possible - if not for the virus they (hypothetically) created, then for what would in retrospect look like (in this hypothetical) a clear attempt at a cover-up. That said: it doesn’t even need to go that far - whether the response should be punitive, it doesn’t need to be. The scientific communities in China and the west are collaborative and could negotiate agreements not to do GoF research. US groups were funneling money into China to do GoF research on coronaviruses, which could be stopped.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > what the West is supposed to do to China should the lab-leak hypothesis be true. The west, or society, should use this as evidence of basically not trusting information from the government of china, if it is contradicted by more neutral or western sources, in the future. So, for example, if someone is talking to you personally, and they try to use evidence from that government, and you have other evidence from western sources that contradicts it, you should just laugh in their face. Call them a mean name and ridicule them.
rhino369 5y ago
Ban gain of function research because it killed 20 million people? Your logic is like BP saying “hey it doesn’t matter how the oil spill started . . .”
- zeptonix 5y ago
  It's actually even worse. It's like, "we don't care how the oil spill started, or even if there are oil spills, or even if 'oil' and 'spill' actually have any business being used together, because what use could pointing a finger have?"
- bsder 5y ago
  > Ban gain of function research because it killed 20 million people? And how do you plan on enforcing this on China? Or on Russia? I'm still waiting for all the armchair geniuses to explain this one to me. You can be ready for when some idiot does this research or not. Those are your options unless you've got some magic way to go to war with nuclear powers that I am unaware of. All banning gain of function research does is leave you unprepared when it happens. Unless you've got a way to enforce this on China, this is unactionable. It's simply propaganda to rile people up. 1) If it was an accident, what are you going to do? If there is anyone sane in the leadership of the lab with knowledge of how this occurred, procedures have already changed. What more do you want them to do? You're NOT going to get a gain-of-function ban without some form of strong coercion. What will it be? 2) If it was intentional (and I see no gain for China if it were), what do you plan to do? You will have to somehow do something to cause actual harm to Chinese leadership. What? China is already guilty of genocide, and all the West does is shrug. Hell, it would almost be better if this were an intentional release if not for all the dead. The emergence of Omicron would demonstrate to the idiots worldwide who thought they could control a virus that the idea is laughable and that the virus will quickly evade whatever you think are your protection measures. And all this ASSUMES that it actually was a lab leak, which the current hypothesis about jumping from mice back to humans decreases the Bayesian prior on dramatically. If Covid can jump that quickly from humans to mice and back, gain of function is suddenly frighteningly common. And the research into gain of function, rather than being banned, needs to be ramped up hard.
zeptonix 5y ago
What a sadly modern philosophy... Sure, why should we learn anything from the past? Let's just adjust the past to be whatever's most convenient for today. If it's not convenient at this immediate moment right now, let's just ignore it ever happened. Those millions of people who died unnecessarily? "Boogeyman" "propaganda" for the "out group"?
jraph 5y ago
I do think it would be actionable as sibling comments point out, but I would find this knowledge interesting by itself (intellectual curiosity, I think we are at the right place for this). > focus hate That wouldn't be me. I would feel bad for the people who caused the leak (edit to be clear: if this is what happened, not assuming anything here). To be at the origin of such a pandemic spanning multiple years with all the repercussions must be uncomfortable.
- zeptonix 5y ago
  I think you're likely to be underestimating how psychopathic / purely driven by their research to the exclusion of all other factors these people are likely to be. You're probably assuming they have a normal / social / reasonable level of empathy, which is an assumption you're extending them, not necessarily one they deserve.
  - jraph 5y ago
    I don't know and I don't assume anything. I was only talking about my own curiosity on the origins of the covid. Though I haven't seriously looked into any particular thing about this recently, including today.
steve76 5y ago

RandomBK 5y ago

That may work for domestic public opinion, but getting any international sanctions to stick on China would require a lot more than circumstantial "they won't let us investigate" evidence. International "law" (if such a thing truly exists in practice) is wonky, and rarely based on nuanced views or established facts. Even domestically, that above quote only applies in specific cases - civil cases, or criminal cases where it can be proven evidence was actually destroyed. I'm not personally aware of clear evidence of bad-faith destruction of evidence right now on China's part. China's refusal to allow a third-party investigation would then be more similar to pleading the 5th, something even US courts are prevented from punishing.