3 ms·

Concerning number 1) that is doesn’t change the Consequence I agree, but the response I thoroughly disagree unless you means strictly short term. Came or not f

by Trufa 4y ago

Concerning number 1) that is doesn’t change the Consequence I agree, but the response I thoroughly disagree unless you means strictly short term. Came or not from a lab, SynBio and gain of functions experiments have the potential of re-doing this of way worse. So basically the only truly important response that is not damage containment is to prevent this from happening (or happen again). Honestly beside fringe groups I don’t see any initiatives happening, if it was up to me I’d kick gain of function experiments into the same realm as chemical weapons.

closeparen 4y ago
There are a variety of natural phenomena and human activities that are liable to create new dangerous viruses and/or bring humans into contact with them. Gain of function research presumably belongs in this category; so do certain food and livestock handling practices, development at the wildland-urban interface, climate change, and a host of other things. The question is how much incremental risk do these activities expose us to, what is the cost/benefit of curtailing them, and what can we feasibly curtail. The risks are what they are, and while we might be misjudging them, knowing the origin of a single event is not especially helpful in recalibrating. Nature breeds extremely serious viruses all by herself; a depressing possibility here is that humans just don't have that much influence over the risk of another pandemic no matter what we do.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  > The question is how much incremental risk do these activities expose us to, what is the cost/benefit of curtailing them, and what can we feasibly curtail. The risks are what they are, and while we might be misjudging them, knowing the origin of a single event is not especially helpful in recalibrating. If only we had responded this way to the virus.
stetrain 4y ago
I meant how we were dealing with COVID-19 as it spread, not future consequences which I agree do matter. Once we identified and sequenced the virus, knowing the origin wasn't going to change how many people were on ventilators in hospitals.

by Trufa 4y ago

closeparen 4y ago

There are a variety of natural phenomena and human activities that are liable to create new dangerous viruses and/or bring humans into contact with them. Gain of function research presumably belongs in this category; so do certain food and livestock handling practices, development at the wildland-urban interface, climate change, and a host of other things. The question is how much incremental risk do these activities expose us to, what is the cost/benefit of curtailing them, and what can we feasibly curtail. The risks are what they are, and while we might be misjudging them, knowing the origin of a single event is not especially helpful in recalibrating. Nature breeds extremely serious viruses all by herself; a depressing possibility here is that humans just don't have that much influence over the risk of another pandemic no matter what we do.

jtbayly 4y ago
> The question is how much incremental risk do these activities expose us to, what is the cost/benefit of curtailing them, and what can we feasibly curtail. The risks are what they are, and while we might be misjudging them, knowing the origin of a single event is not especially helpful in recalibrating. If only we had responded this way to the virus.

stetrain 4y ago

I meant how we were dealing with COVID-19 as it spread, not future consequences which I agree do matter. Once we identified and sequenced the virus, knowing the origin wasn't going to change how many people were on ventilators in hospitals.