3 ms·

> Or, in other words, what would we do differently if it were a lab leak? If the virus is a laboratory construct (e.g., a recombinant of two novel natural viru

> Or, in other words, what would we do differently if it were a lab leak? If the virus is a laboratory construct (e.g., a recombinant of two novel natural viruses with a human-chosen FCS; we can argue about how likely that was, but no genomic evidence can exclude that), then it would near-certainly never have existed without that laboratory manipulation. The pandemic could near-certainly have been permanently avoided simply by not constructing it. This was a matter of controversy long before the pandemic; such work was banned in 2014, but the ban expired in 2017: https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-lifts-3-year-ban-funding-risky-virus-studies?cookieSet=1 https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-lifts-3-year-ban... If the virus is naturally-evolved but sampled and released accidentally by scientists, then it might otherwise later have been released accidentally by infected non-scientists. It wouldn't have been necessarily though, especially since WIV researchers sampled remote bat caves that no other humans routinely entered. Sampling of sites with significant existing human traffic (farms, markets, tourism sites, etc.) seems like a clear benefit, a negligible increase in the existing risk of natural spillover. Sampling of remote sites without such traffic seems much less clear. There's something weird about public attitude to biological risks. When the government did a controlled burn in New Mexico that got out of control and destroyed hundreds of houses, everyone involved recognized that they'd screwed up, even though fires also occur naturally, and even though controlled burns are a valuable tool in controlling natural fires. It seems that intuition doesn't hold for lab-origin pandemics. The 1977 flu originated from scientific research (although the exact nature of that research--whether it was a failed vaccine, or a vaccine challenge trial, or an experiment at the bench--is disputed), and it killed about 700k people. No one seems to care, and I don't really understand why.

elil17 4y ago
I'd argue should be doing more to ensure lab biohazard safety regardless of the origin of COVID-19, which is one reason I don't think knowing the answer has a lot of practical significance.
- tripletao 4y ago
  If you'd like to see greater regulation of biological research, then I'm pretty sure strong evidence that it killed millions of people would help with political support for that? So I'm not sure why we wouldn't look, especially when many obvious paths (e.g. subpoenas for all data potentially containing early viral genomes as contamination, like from Illumina's cloud services) remain unexplored.
  - elil17 4y ago
    I think practically it would be used to generate hostile sentiment between countries and wouldn’t drive good regulations. But maybe I’m just a pessimist!
    - tripletao 4y ago
      Hostile sentiment between which countries? The WIV was on Chinese soil, but received American funds and had many American collaborators; so I don't think either country is in a great position to blame the other. On the other hand that gives China and the USA a shared interest in discouraging investigation of the cause, as seems to have occurred.
upwardbound 4y ago
That's really sad about the 1977 flu. Was there evidence that it was human-caused, and that proper procedures weren't followed? Could local prosecutors have pursued a case based on something like manslaughter or criminal negligence? Would it even be possible to still build such a case? (i.e. maybe the statute of limitations didn't expire yet?)
- tripletao 4y ago
  There's very little question that the 1977 flu pandemic was human-caused. Even Gigi Gronvall opens her paper with: > The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event, [...] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/ She goes on to say it wasn't a "laboratory accident", because it was probably a vaccine accident, either an incompletely attenuated vaccine or a trial in which vaccine recipients were deliberately challenged with live virus to test their immunity. That distinction seems like a legalistic game to me, intended to distract from the lesson that pandemic may teach us about this one; but I believe her historical background is good. I don't know any mechanism by which those responsible would be punished, even if the exact truth came out, and even if they're still alive. I'm not even sure they should be--virology was still in its infancy then, and the escape presumably really was an honest mistake. Of course the more times this happens, the harder it gets to accept such an excuse, especially when deliberate efforts are made to minimize and distract from the lessons of the past.

elil17 4y ago

I'd argue should be doing more to ensure lab biohazard safety regardless of the origin of COVID-19, which is one reason I don't think knowing the answer has a lot of practical significance.

tripletao 4y ago
If you'd like to see greater regulation of biological research, then I'm pretty sure strong evidence that it killed millions of people would help with political support for that? So I'm not sure why we wouldn't look, especially when many obvious paths (e.g. subpoenas for all data potentially containing early viral genomes as contamination, like from Illumina's cloud services) remain unexplored.
- elil17 4y ago
  I think practically it would be used to generate hostile sentiment between countries and wouldn’t drive good regulations. But maybe I’m just a pessimist!
  - tripletao 4y ago
    Hostile sentiment between which countries? The WIV was on Chinese soil, but received American funds and had many American collaborators; so I don't think either country is in a great position to blame the other. On the other hand that gives China and the USA a shared interest in discouraging investigation of the cause, as seems to have occurred.

upwardbound 4y ago

That's really sad about the 1977 flu. Was there evidence that it was human-caused, and that proper procedures weren't followed? Could local prosecutors have pursued a case based on something like manslaughter or criminal negligence? Would it even be possible to still build such a case? (i.e. maybe the statute of limitations didn't expire yet?)

tripletao 4y ago
There's very little question that the 1977 flu pandemic was human-caused. Even Gigi Gronvall opens her paper with: > The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event, [...] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/ She goes on to say it wasn't a "laboratory accident", because it was probably a vaccine accident, either an incompletely attenuated vaccine or a trial in which vaccine recipients were deliberately challenged with live virus to test their immunity. That distinction seems like a legalistic game to me, intended to distract from the lesson that pandemic may teach us about this one; but I believe her historical background is good. I don't know any mechanism by which those responsible would be punished, even if the exact truth came out, and even if they're still alive. I'm not even sure they should be--virology was still in its infancy then, and the escape presumably really was an honest mistake. Of course the more times this happens, the harder it gets to accept such an excuse, especially when deliberate efforts are made to minimize and distract from the lessons of the past.