8 ms·

> 1) Understanding the origin doesn't change the consequences or response to the pandemic I have the opposite opinion. If there was a lab leak and a coverup,

> 1) Understanding the origin doesn't change the consequences or response to the pandemic I have the opposite opinion. If there was a lab leak and a coverup, this meant that the Chinese government likely knew earlier and had more information about the nature of the virus and how it spread. That could have saved millions of lives. We spent the first several months of the pandemic under the belief that it wasn't airborne. This ended up being false. If this was a lab leak, it means that this kind of research is far more dangerous than we've been lead to believe and continuing without appropriate safeguards puts us at great risk.

shadowgovt 4y ago
> That could have saved millions of lives But that still doesn't change the consequences or response to the pandemic. That's coulda-woulda-shoulda reasoning.
- _aavaa_ 4y ago
  Of course it does. It will impact other countries relationships with china. And it would impact the kind and level of scrutiny over this kind of research.
  - corrral 4y ago
    > It will impact other countries relationships with china. And it would impact the kind and level of scrutiny over this kind of research. I think the point is that neither of those would have had an effect on the pandemic. By the time it was major news in the US, it was too late for any of that to matter in terms of what to do about this pandemic. Not the next one, or our future relations with China, but with this pandemic.
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      A) I guess I interpreted "consequences" more generally to also include the consequences beyond the disease itself. B) I still believe that it would have been important. If it escaped from a lab, then those working in the lab could potentially have important information to share with the world about it. E.g. is it airborne, how much does it mutate, etc. They would have been studying it for a reason.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        The fact that information never saw the light of day should be obvious evidence it didn't come out of a lab.
        _aavaa_ 4y ago
        Based on what implicit assumption? That a government would allow that information to be published? Look at how cagey and not forthcoming the Chinese government was under the current conditions. Try to extrapolate to what they would act like if it did leak from a lab.
ikiris 4y ago
I'm going to be blunt here. No one with medical training thought this wasn't airborne.
- bragh 4y ago
  Funny then how for the first few months of the pandemic the emphasis and public guidance was on desinfecting hands and surfaces and endless debates about how if masks actually help.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - propagandist 4y ago
    That was deliberate disinformation in order to save masks for the "frontline workers". Fauci has stated that in one of the hearings.
    - epgui 4y ago
      It wasn't disinformation. It was no secret that one of the reasons masks weren't recommended for general public use was that hospitals and clinics should be supplied as a priority. If you got a different impression than this message, blame wherever you get your news from.
      - pseudo0 4y ago
        What, the US Surgeon General? https://archive.ph/KgfXW https://archive.ph/KgfXW > Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! > They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk! It's hard to get more direct than that. It wasn't just about preserving supply for healthcare workers, high-level government officials were explicitly stating that masks were not effective for the general public. Fortunately we have archives of all this stuff, as many statements (like this one) were later deleted.
thenayr 4y ago
What...literally everyone knew there was AT LEAST airbone risk of infection. Not sure where you got your pandemic information?
rdl 4y ago
Airborne was always known; debate was droplet vs aerosol (particle size and thus dwell time/radius). Not really a binary distinction anyway; a matter of degree.
- rhino369 4y ago
  A fair large degree though. However, as I understand it, it wasn't a misconception unique this particular coronavirus. But that the entire medical field just had a longstanding, bad understanding of dynamics. So its not like the Wuhan lab was sitting on some crucial information, they almost certainly had the same misunderstanding.
- timr 4y ago
  I agree it's not binary -- and the SARS CoV2 debate, in particular, became a theater of the absurd -- but the categorical distinction is not entirely crazy: some viruses are much more sensitive to drying out or exposure to the environment and simply cannot transmit efficiently in tiny aerosols. Tons of work has gone into weaponizing smallpox, for example. It's a non-trivial thing, even though smallpox is technically already a virus that transmits via aerosol. Many viruses will exist in saliva, and will happily transmit through direct contact, but won't transmit well via the air (mononucleosis comes to mind).
- ChemSpider 4y ago
  > Airborne was always known In the early days China even claimed even that this thing is NOT contagious - and yet they already started isolating patients at this time.
- ironmagma 4y ago
  > the World Health Organization said that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w
  - rdl 4y ago
    Ah yeah, you are right, airborne is defined as "aerosol" but "through the air in droplets" is not. It seemed pretty obvious it was aerosol but not proven early on/suppressed for reasons.
Ekaros 4y ago
I really have to ask. Did we really not have any idea how corona viruses spread before? If so, what other virus families we are unaware now and why aren't we spending lot of money to prepare for all of them?
eric_cc 4y ago
> If this was a lab leak, it means that this kind of research is far more dangerous than we've been lead to believe Even if it wasn’t a lab leak, it could have been. So whether it was or was not should not change your opinion about the danger of this type of research.
friedman23 4y ago
This pandemic was raging inside China for months before it reached the US. What the Chinese government did by not allowing international observers and researchers and preventing the spread of information DID result in millions of lives lost. We could have had the vaccine available MONTHS in advance.
snowwrestler 4y ago
> If there was a lab leak and a coverup, this meant that the Chinese government likely knew earlier and had more information about the nature of the virus and how it spread. That could have saved millions of lives. The lesson here is not “we need to prove it was a lab leak,” the lesson is “we need better visibility inside China.” Which is also true for viruses that arise naturally inside China. Do you think that if you could prove with total certainty that it was a lab leak in 2019, that would change China’s approach to secrecy in the future? > If this was a lab leak, it means that this kind of research is far more dangerous than we've been lead to believe and continuing without appropriate safeguards puts us at great risk. Do you think we can stop secret viral research in China if they want to do it? One of my frustrations with the “lab leak theory” is that it seems to cause fuzzy thinking about future preparedness. We can’t control other nations and we can’t stop natural viral evolution. Future preparedness is the same as past preparedness: detect and respond. We just did a bad job of it with COVID-19. The lesson is: do a better job.
- ShannonLimiter 4y ago
  > The lesson here is not “we need to prove it was a lab leak,” the lesson is “we need better visibility inside China.” Which is also true for viruses that arise naturally inside China. The WIV was conducting research with US financial and technical support. The lab in question regarding a potential leak was funded in part to look for early signs of outbreaks. If there was a lab leak and it was inadvertently caused by this lab, would you suggest that we continue to fund and provide support with no changes? > One of my frustrations with the “lab leak theory” is that it seems to cause fuzzy thinking about future preparedness. I can't speak to what you've seen elsewhere, but future preparedness should involve more transparency, safeguards that samples are being tested with the right safety levels and actual independent oversight. It seems crazy to continue funding a bad faith actor without those conditions.
- peteradio 4y ago
  > We can’t control other nations Really? Is diplomacy dead? I guess you can probably say "we can't absolutely control other nations" but nations don't even absolutely control themselves.
stetrain 4y ago
I meant the consequences and response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021. Of course there are longer term and big-picture consequences if it was a lab leak. Which is why I said it was important to research and understand the origin. I just get why it wasn't top priority during the actual pandemic response. Edit: And of course there are geopolitical implications. I think the same point applies, at the time the focus was on the response and avoiding inciting a political battle over something that wouldn't have a near-term benefit.
lamontcg 4y ago
> If there was a lab leak and a coverup, this meant that the Chinese government likely knew earlier and had more information about the nature of the virus and how it spread. You're assuming that the lab "designed" it like a new vehicle engine complete with horsepower and torque specs. Even given it was produced in a lab through chimeras and serial passage then they still wouldn't have known what they had. They wouldn't have known its characteristics in a human population. They wouldn't have known how long its incubation period was, or when peak symptoms and peak transmissibility happened, they wouldn't have known its virulence, or its R0 in a human population or pretty much anything. They'd might have receptor binding assays against the human ACE-2 receptor. That knowledge and $4.25 will buy you a latte, but it won't predict the trajectory of a pandemic. And why aren't you annoyed at the coverup that China is doing of its zoonotic origins and that China isn't cleaning up all of the trafficking in live animals like palm civets and racoon dogs? We know SARS-CoV-1 happened, and there was no BSL4 lab to blame it on, so it was definitely zoonotic, yet still fairly unexplained, and nothing serious was done to prevent it from happening again. Now the US is blaming the WIV lab and China is feeding its domestic population propaganda about how the US did it, and still nothing is being done to address the mechanism that we know created SARS-CoV-1. There's still a known virological time bomb there that nobody is doing anything about. And the reason why China wants to cover up the zoonotic origins and kick the can down the road is that it can use the lab leak theory to push the domestic propaganda that the US did, along with avoiding the political costs of clamping down on the animal trade. And there will be a political cost to doing that. Imagine if in 2009 that the H1N1 pandemic happened in a US pig farm and was 100 times worse, and then Obama tried to ban bacon to prevent a future pandemic.

shadowgovt 4y ago

> That could have saved millions of lives But that still doesn't change the consequences or response to the pandemic. That's coulda-woulda-shoulda reasoning.

_aavaa_ 4y ago
Of course it does. It will impact other countries relationships with china. And it would impact the kind and level of scrutiny over this kind of research.
- corrral 4y ago
  > It will impact other countries relationships with china. And it would impact the kind and level of scrutiny over this kind of research. I think the point is that neither of those would have had an effect on the pandemic. By the time it was major news in the US, it was too late for any of that to matter in terms of what to do about this pandemic. Not the next one, or our future relations with China, but with this pandemic.
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    A) I guess I interpreted "consequences" more generally to also include the consequences beyond the disease itself. B) I still believe that it would have been important. If it escaped from a lab, then those working in the lab could potentially have important information to share with the world about it. E.g. is it airborne, how much does it mutate, etc. They would have been studying it for a reason.
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      The fact that information never saw the light of day should be obvious evidence it didn't come out of a lab.
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        Based on what implicit assumption? That a government would allow that information to be published? Look at how cagey and not forthcoming the Chinese government was under the current conditions. Try to extrapolate to what they would act like if it did leak from a lab.

ikiris 4y ago

I'm going to be blunt here. No one with medical training thought this wasn't airborne.

bragh 4y ago
Funny then how for the first few months of the pandemic the emphasis and public guidance was on desinfecting hands and surfaces and endless debates about how if masks actually help.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- propagandist 4y ago
  That was deliberate disinformation in order to save masks for the "frontline workers". Fauci has stated that in one of the hearings.
  - epgui 4y ago
    It wasn't disinformation. It was no secret that one of the reasons masks weren't recommended for general public use was that hospitals and clinics should be supplied as a priority. If you got a different impression than this message, blame wherever you get your news from.
    - pseudo0 4y ago
      What, the US Surgeon General? https://archive.ph/KgfXW https://archive.ph/KgfXW > Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! > They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk! It's hard to get more direct than that. It wasn't just about preserving supply for healthcare workers, high-level government officials were explicitly stating that masks were not effective for the general public. Fortunately we have archives of all this stuff, as many statements (like this one) were later deleted.

thenayr 4y ago

What...literally everyone knew there was AT LEAST airbone risk of infection. Not sure where you got your pandemic information?

rdl 4y ago

Airborne was always known; debate was droplet vs aerosol (particle size and thus dwell time/radius). Not really a binary distinction anyway; a matter of degree.

rhino369 4y ago
A fair large degree though. However, as I understand it, it wasn't a misconception unique this particular coronavirus. But that the entire medical field just had a longstanding, bad understanding of dynamics. So its not like the Wuhan lab was sitting on some crucial information, they almost certainly had the same misunderstanding.
timr 4y ago
I agree it's not binary -- and the SARS CoV2 debate, in particular, became a theater of the absurd -- but the categorical distinction is not entirely crazy: some viruses are much more sensitive to drying out or exposure to the environment and simply cannot transmit efficiently in tiny aerosols. Tons of work has gone into weaponizing smallpox, for example. It's a non-trivial thing, even though smallpox is technically already a virus that transmits via aerosol. Many viruses will exist in saliva, and will happily transmit through direct contact, but won't transmit well via the air (mononucleosis comes to mind).
ChemSpider 4y ago
> Airborne was always known In the early days China even claimed even that this thing is NOT contagious - and yet they already started isolating patients at this time.
ironmagma 4y ago
> the World Health Organization said that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is airborne https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00974-w
- rdl 4y ago
  Ah yeah, you are right, airborne is defined as "aerosol" but "through the air in droplets" is not. It seemed pretty obvious it was aerosol but not proven early on/suppressed for reasons.

Ekaros 4y ago

I really have to ask. Did we really not have any idea how corona viruses spread before? If so, what other virus families we are unaware now and why aren't we spending lot of money to prepare for all of them?

eric_cc 4y ago

> If this was a lab leak, it means that this kind of research is far more dangerous than we've been lead to believe Even if it wasn’t a lab leak, it could have been. So whether it was or was not should not change your opinion about the danger of this type of research.

friedman23 4y ago

This pandemic was raging inside China for months before it reached the US. What the Chinese government did by not allowing international observers and researchers and preventing the spread of information DID result in millions of lives lost. We could have had the vaccine available MONTHS in advance.

snowwrestler 4y ago

> If there was a lab leak and a coverup, this meant that the Chinese government likely knew earlier and had more information about the nature of the virus and how it spread. That could have saved millions of lives. The lesson here is not “we need to prove it was a lab leak,” the lesson is “we need better visibility inside China.” Which is also true for viruses that arise naturally inside China. Do you think that if you could prove with total certainty that it was a lab leak in 2019, that would change China’s approach to secrecy in the future? > If this was a lab leak, it means that this kind of research is far more dangerous than we've been lead to believe and continuing without appropriate safeguards puts us at great risk. Do you think we can stop secret viral research in China if they want to do it? One of my frustrations with the “lab leak theory” is that it seems to cause fuzzy thinking about future preparedness. We can’t control other nations and we can’t stop natural viral evolution. Future preparedness is the same as past preparedness: detect and respond. We just did a bad job of it with COVID-19. The lesson is: do a better job.

ShannonLimiter 4y ago
> The lesson here is not “we need to prove it was a lab leak,” the lesson is “we need better visibility inside China.” Which is also true for viruses that arise naturally inside China. The WIV was conducting research with US financial and technical support. The lab in question regarding a potential leak was funded in part to look for early signs of outbreaks. If there was a lab leak and it was inadvertently caused by this lab, would you suggest that we continue to fund and provide support with no changes? > One of my frustrations with the “lab leak theory” is that it seems to cause fuzzy thinking about future preparedness. I can't speak to what you've seen elsewhere, but future preparedness should involve more transparency, safeguards that samples are being tested with the right safety levels and actual independent oversight. It seems crazy to continue funding a bad faith actor without those conditions.
peteradio 4y ago
> We can’t control other nations Really? Is diplomacy dead? I guess you can probably say "we can't absolutely control other nations" but nations don't even absolutely control themselves.

stetrain 4y ago

I meant the consequences and response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021. Of course there are longer term and big-picture consequences if it was a lab leak. Which is why I said it was important to research and understand the origin. I just get why it wasn't top priority during the actual pandemic response. Edit: And of course there are geopolitical implications. I think the same point applies, at the time the focus was on the response and avoiding inciting a political battle over something that wouldn't have a near-term benefit.

lamontcg 4y ago

> If there was a lab leak and a coverup, this meant that the Chinese government likely knew earlier and had more information about the nature of the virus and how it spread. You're assuming that the lab "designed" it like a new vehicle engine complete with horsepower and torque specs. Even given it was produced in a lab through chimeras and serial passage then they still wouldn't have known what they had. They wouldn't have known its characteristics in a human population. They wouldn't have known how long its incubation period was, or when peak symptoms and peak transmissibility happened, they wouldn't have known its virulence, or its R0 in a human population or pretty much anything. They'd might have receptor binding assays against the human ACE-2 receptor. That knowledge and $4.25 will buy you a latte, but it won't predict the trajectory of a pandemic. And why aren't you annoyed at the coverup that China is doing of its zoonotic origins and that China isn't cleaning up all of the trafficking in live animals like palm civets and racoon dogs? We know SARS-CoV-1 happened, and there was no BSL4 lab to blame it on, so it was definitely zoonotic, yet still fairly unexplained, and nothing serious was done to prevent it from happening again. Now the US is blaming the WIV lab and China is feeding its domestic population propaganda about how the US did it, and still nothing is being done to address the mechanism that we know created SARS-CoV-1. There's still a known virological time bomb there that nobody is doing anything about. And the reason why China wants to cover up the zoonotic origins and kick the can down the road is that it can use the lab leak theory to push the domestic propaganda that the US did, along with avoiding the political costs of clamping down on the animal trade. And there will be a political cost to doing that. Imagine if in 2009 that the H1N1 pandemic happened in a US pig farm and was 100 times worse, and then Obama tried to ban bacon to prevent a future pandemic.