3 ms·
Totally agree -- a similar situation has occurred where some airplane crashes and the people that know the most about it either work for the industry or consult
by xt00 5y ago
Totally agree -- a similar situation has occurred where some airplane crashes and the people that know the most about it either work for the industry or consult for the industry and there is essentially nobody else that knows anything useful. So one way that this type of thing can be approached is to have a commission -- the equivalent of an information "firing squad" -- nobody really knows who said what, but it allows information to be presented from experts. But requires a ton of trust among the people in the commission to not out each other for who said what.
I think we can all bet that behind closed doors the people that are involved in this type of research are definitely treating the possibility of a lab-leak as highly probable and are thinking about ways to prevent it in the future since we now know that apparently tons of people would rather get disease X than be told what to do.. so we have a bigger future problem on our hands than we thought if something really nasty escapes..
- rossdavidh 5y agoThe airplane industry precedent is a good one, but in this case you do have a professional cadre who work on investigating plane crashes, not making planes. This is because there are (or at least were) enough plane crashes to persuade governments to pay for this. As plane crashes have gotten rarer, the ability of the government (in the US, anyway) to maintain in-house expertise sufficient for the job, has declined, I think not coincidentally. Not sure what the solution is for airlines, but in any case for virus outbreaks we have (fortunately) too few cases to maintain an independent profession of investigators (I hope I am not naive in saying this).