3 ms·

> It is perfectly reasonable that some lab somewhere would collect and study the COVID virus. What is unreasonable is that the lab or a lab worker just got slop

by cudgy 4y ago

> It is perfectly reasonable that some lab somewhere would collect and study the COVID virus. What is unreasonable is that the lab or a lab worker just got sloppy and accidently released that virus out to the world. Is this still true? It is unfortunate that it took an event like this to prove what we already knew: lab workers, who are of course fallible humans, will make mistakes. Given that Covid was released upon the world likely due to a lab accident and all of the damage it did over a span of years, it would seem reasonable to rethink whether unlimited experimentation and especially enhancement with viruses should be allowed. This in itself has proven to be a source of denial by the very virus experts (like Fauci) that do not want their area of science to be restricted.

mikeyouse 4y ago
> Given that Covid was released upon the world likely due to a lab accident This is entirely without evidence. > This in itself has proven to be a source of denial by the very virus experts (like Fauci) that do not want their area of science to be restricted. Even if you ignore Covid19 -- epidemiologists and virologists have been screaming for years that pandemics are hugely problematic and will become increasingly likely as we densify and further intrude into the urban-wilderness interface. We got extremely lucky that SARS1 wasn't as lethal or infectious as Covid-19. If the work virologists do (even the 'riskiest' work) could lead to new universal coronavirus vaccines or better treatments, it's a much more complicated question on whether to continue the work than ignorant opinions insist.
- mullen 4y ago
  > This is entirely without evidence. To make it clear, the Chinese government blocks any investigation by outside parties that they don't control or have influence over.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    They obviously don't have control over the authors of the paper for thread you're commenting on, and for the umpteenth time, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Confidently asserting that since we don't have evidence of a lab leak, it's somehow more likely is just dumb. Virologists have pored over the genome and are highly confident it's a virus of natural origin -- that already greatly limits the role a lab could have played and doesn't require any input or approval from the Chinese government.
    - cudgy 4y ago
      > umpteenth time, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence Repeating nonsensical statements does not make the statement clearer. Paying attention to what you want to pay attention to is fine, but it is not a robust way to process unreliable data.
- cudgy 4y ago
  And what evidence may you have that it did not come from a lab? Ignoring the incredible risks of playing with and even creating deadly pathogens and the high likelihood of it being released into the world serves what purpose other than to protect a small group of scientists that want to create Frankenstein pathogens for experimental purposes that are likely to be either weaponized or accidentally released? Even if there are some beneficial results from such research it is likely countered by the huge risks to mankind.
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    You do see the imbalance between the two statements right? "This virus came from a lab - so we should ban lab research" and "You can't prove the virus didn't come from a lab - so we should ban lab research" Nature is doing far more Gain of Function research than humans are capable of - as evidenced by literally every pandemic in history. I've generally found the people who are the most vocal about banning GoF have literally no idea what it entails and why the way pedestrians talk about is so cringeworthy.

by cudgy 4y ago

mikeyouse 4y ago

> Given that Covid was released upon the world likely due to a lab accident This is entirely without evidence. > This in itself has proven to be a source of denial by the very virus experts (like Fauci) that do not want their area of science to be restricted. Even if you ignore Covid19 -- epidemiologists and virologists have been screaming for years that pandemics are hugely problematic and will become increasingly likely as we densify and further intrude into the urban-wilderness interface. We got extremely lucky that SARS1 wasn't as lethal or infectious as Covid-19. If the work virologists do (even the 'riskiest' work) could lead to new universal coronavirus vaccines or better treatments, it's a much more complicated question on whether to continue the work than ignorant opinions insist.

mullen 4y ago
> This is entirely without evidence. To make it clear, the Chinese government blocks any investigation by outside parties that they don't control or have influence over.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  They obviously don't have control over the authors of the paper for thread you're commenting on, and for the umpteenth time, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Confidently asserting that since we don't have evidence of a lab leak, it's somehow more likely is just dumb. Virologists have pored over the genome and are highly confident it's a virus of natural origin -- that already greatly limits the role a lab could have played and doesn't require any input or approval from the Chinese government.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    > umpteenth time, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence Repeating nonsensical statements does not make the statement clearer. Paying attention to what you want to pay attention to is fine, but it is not a robust way to process unreliable data.
cudgy 4y ago
And what evidence may you have that it did not come from a lab? Ignoring the incredible risks of playing with and even creating deadly pathogens and the high likelihood of it being released into the world serves what purpose other than to protect a small group of scientists that want to create Frankenstein pathogens for experimental purposes that are likely to be either weaponized or accidentally released? Even if there are some beneficial results from such research it is likely countered by the huge risks to mankind.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  You do see the imbalance between the two statements right? "This virus came from a lab - so we should ban lab research" and "You can't prove the virus didn't come from a lab - so we should ban lab research" Nature is doing far more Gain of Function research than humans are capable of - as evidenced by literally every pandemic in history. I've generally found the people who are the most vocal about banning GoF have literally no idea what it entails and why the way pedestrians talk about is so cringeworthy.