5 ms·

It's not that the origin story is not important, it's not that people don't care, it's that it is a distraction. It doesn't help solve the crisis. The article

It's not that the origin story is not important, it's not that people don't care, it's that it is a distraction. It doesn't help solve the crisis. The article makes the comparison with a nuclear bomb. This is a bad comparison. If we were attacked by a sentient creature, we could reason with it and mitigate further damage or escalation. In the case of a virus, it's good to know to prevent future pandemics maybe, and there is an academic interests, but it doesn't help with the current situation.

specialp 4y ago
Finding the root cause of an unprecedented disaster might not reverse the history of that disaster, but it would help prevent future similar disasters. Now we are clearly aware of the costs. It isn't a distraction to look into the cause of a disaster as we are able as a society to work on many different problems at the same time. It does help with our current situation of being very vulnerable to highly contagious respiratory diseases. COVID is probably never going away. To have another one join if this could have been prevented would be far worse for us.
phatboyslim 4y ago
The origin story is paramount to preventing future outbreaks and to the loss of, and disruption to, our way of life. The US took the same position on combating terrorism when it rooted out Al-Qaeda. To stop future loss of life, the root cause needs to be identified and dealt with. I vehemently disagree with the assessment that the origin is not instrumental to the defense of future outbreaks.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  No it is not, because it is undisputed that viruses can evolve to infect humans. If we had 100% solid proof SARS-COV-2 originated in a lab, it would not change our approach to detecting or mitigating future outbreaks. We always have to prepare for either. It’s not like it never occurred to anyone before that dangerous infectious agents could escape a lab. It was a well-known possibility and was incorporated into U.S. federal pandemic preparedness planning since at least the George W Bush administration. An accidental leak from a lab must still be detected, and once detected, public health measures initiated. The procedures are the same as for a natural origin. The fundamental lesson from COVID-19 is that we cannot let our guard down. The Trump administration did in many ways, and so were not able to detect or respond fast enough.
  - eric_cc 4y ago
    > The Trump administration It was Trump’s fault!! /s So what you’re saying is we should be more concerned with defense and accept that viruses will be engineered. I don’t disagree with this line of thinking but I also believe we must be on the offensive too. We can’t just accept that labs will build viruses.
  - kaitaincps 4y ago
    Rubbish. The response would not be to increase surveillance near labs. It would be to float a moratorium on GoF research and to increase biosafety at labs. Much of the work being done at the WIV was carried out at BSL-2, which is absolutely shocking.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  It seems like you are using the US War on Terror as a good example? It didn’t stop the loss of life, it just changed the arena. Orders of magnitudes more people died as a result of that than from the attack that spawned it.
robbomacrae 4y ago
I think this is correct. I also think the point being made is that we SHOULD spend more time learning lessons and applying them to try and prevent some of the future pandemics. Imagine if we can prevent just one out of the next 10 pandemics through investment here. That would be millions of lives saved! Part of the problem with the covid pandemic is how much we let our guard down. For example, the Global Health Security and Biodefense unit — responsible for pandemic preparedness — was established in 2015 by Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice [0]. This was then disbanded under Trump and its head Timothy Ziemer, top White House official in the NSC for leading U.S. response against a pandemic, left the administration [1]. Jon Oliver has a good segment on why we need to focus on preventing future pandemics [2]. [0]: https://time.com/5806558/administration-officials-fight-criticism/ https://time.com/5806558/administration-officials-fight-crit... [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/10/top-white-house-official-in-charge-of-pandemic-response-exits-abruptly/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/0... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U
bredren 4y ago
If this is true, it seems like science trying to have it both ways. Usually, there's desire for media to share scientific evidence in ways that are engaging to the public to recognize our best scientific conclusions. What I'm taking from your portrayal is scientists know best what ~"helps the current situation." Despite the origin being important, and that the public wants to know about it science doesn't want evidence on this matter and doesn't want it covered by the media or for it to influence the thinking of the public. These seem like political behaviors, not scientific ones.
127 4y ago
Hiding the cause also prevents anyone from fixing the cause.
eric_cc 4y ago
> it is a distraction. It doesn't help solve the crisis. This is extremely naive. Do you really believe it won’t happen all over again? The real crisis is not Covid. It’s how easy something even worse than Covid could be started today.
notacoward 4y ago
> It doesn't help solve the crisis. It doesn't help solve the crisis and it doesn't change attitudes toward gain-of-function research. The pandemic itself, regardless of origin, highlighted the possible consequences. Even without a connection to research - and even more so with the mere possibility - it heightened concern about lab safety, and made the risk/reward calculations around GoF research even less favorable than they already had been. The community of people capable of performing or funding such research was already on top of it - again, regardless of origin. Public finger-pointing is only likely to rile up nationalist sentiments which would interfere with establishing better procedures and protocols governing virological research. The lawyers and diplomats have some work to do, but (especially in light of today's news) I suggest that the rest of us including the media have some higher priorities for how to spend our time/energy.

specialp 4y ago

Finding the root cause of an unprecedented disaster might not reverse the history of that disaster, but it would help prevent future similar disasters. Now we are clearly aware of the costs. It isn't a distraction to look into the cause of a disaster as we are able as a society to work on many different problems at the same time. It does help with our current situation of being very vulnerable to highly contagious respiratory diseases. COVID is probably never going away. To have another one join if this could have been prevented would be far worse for us.

phatboyslim 4y ago

The origin story is paramount to preventing future outbreaks and to the loss of, and disruption to, our way of life. The US took the same position on combating terrorism when it rooted out Al-Qaeda. To stop future loss of life, the root cause needs to be identified and dealt with. I vehemently disagree with the assessment that the origin is not instrumental to the defense of future outbreaks.

snowwrestler 4y ago
No it is not, because it is undisputed that viruses can evolve to infect humans. If we had 100% solid proof SARS-COV-2 originated in a lab, it would not change our approach to detecting or mitigating future outbreaks. We always have to prepare for either. It’s not like it never occurred to anyone before that dangerous infectious agents could escape a lab. It was a well-known possibility and was incorporated into U.S. federal pandemic preparedness planning since at least the George W Bush administration. An accidental leak from a lab must still be detected, and once detected, public health measures initiated. The procedures are the same as for a natural origin. The fundamental lesson from COVID-19 is that we cannot let our guard down. The Trump administration did in many ways, and so were not able to detect or respond fast enough.
- eric_cc 4y ago
  > The Trump administration It was Trump’s fault!! /s So what you’re saying is we should be more concerned with defense and accept that viruses will be engineered. I don’t disagree with this line of thinking but I also believe we must be on the offensive too. We can’t just accept that labs will build viruses.
- kaitaincps 4y ago
  Rubbish. The response would not be to increase surveillance near labs. It would be to float a moratorium on GoF research and to increase biosafety at labs. Much of the work being done at the WIV was carried out at BSL-2, which is absolutely shocking.
arrosenberg 4y ago
It seems like you are using the US War on Terror as a good example? It didn’t stop the loss of life, it just changed the arena. Orders of magnitudes more people died as a result of that than from the attack that spawned it.

robbomacrae 4y ago

I think this is correct. I also think the point being made is that we SHOULD spend more time learning lessons and applying them to try and prevent some of the future pandemics. Imagine if we can prevent just one out of the next 10 pandemics through investment here. That would be millions of lives saved! Part of the problem with the covid pandemic is how much we let our guard down. For example, the Global Health Security and Biodefense unit — responsible for pandemic preparedness — was established in 2015 by Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice [0]. This was then disbanded under Trump and its head Timothy Ziemer, top White House official in the NSC for leading U.S. response against a pandemic, left the administration [1]. Jon Oliver has a good segment on why we need to focus on preventing future pandemics [2]. [0]: https://time.com/5806558/administration-officials-fight-criticism/ https://time.com/5806558/administration-officials-fight-crit... [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/05/10/top-white-house-official-in-charge-of-pandemic-response-exits-abruptly/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/0... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v-U3K1sw9U

bredren 4y ago

If this is true, it seems like science trying to have it both ways. Usually, there's desire for media to share scientific evidence in ways that are engaging to the public to recognize our best scientific conclusions. What I'm taking from your portrayal is scientists know best what ~"helps the current situation." Despite the origin being important, and that the public wants to know about it science doesn't want evidence on this matter and doesn't want it covered by the media or for it to influence the thinking of the public. These seem like political behaviors, not scientific ones.

127 4y ago

Hiding the cause also prevents anyone from fixing the cause.

eric_cc 4y ago

> it is a distraction. It doesn't help solve the crisis. This is extremely naive. Do you really believe it won’t happen all over again? The real crisis is not Covid. It’s how easy something even worse than Covid could be started today.

notacoward 4y ago

> It doesn't help solve the crisis. It doesn't help solve the crisis and it doesn't change attitudes toward gain-of-function research. The pandemic itself, regardless of origin, highlighted the possible consequences. Even without a connection to research - and even more so with the mere possibility - it heightened concern about lab safety, and made the risk/reward calculations around GoF research even less favorable than they already had been. The community of people capable of performing or funding such research was already on top of it - again, regardless of origin. Public finger-pointing is only likely to rile up nationalist sentiments which would interfere with establishing better procedures and protocols governing virological research. The lawyers and diplomats have some work to do, but (especially in light of today's news) I suggest that the rest of us including the media have some higher priorities for how to spend our time/energy.