8 ms·

I don’t go looking for covid discussions but they arrive in my feeds so i’m conscious i’m seeing a feed that someone(s) else curated for me and wanted me to vie

I don’t go looking for covid discussions but they arrive in my feeds so i’m conscious i’m seeing a feed that someone(s) else curated for me and wanted me to view. That said… Is there any popular discussion or action regarding mitigation of both lab and natural origins for future? It seems that both avenues are possible. If we know both are possible, that seems like enough knowledge to move forward with exploring possible mitigations for future. I realise there may be hard reasons why no mitigation is possible, but i just never encounter popular discussion of what to do next.

igouy 4y ago
"The first obvious corrective action would be to" help China shrink the live animal trade.
igouy 4y ago
"A ban publicly endorsed by Xi Jinping was instituted on the consumption of almost all wild animals. … There are risks, however, that the economic pressures these actions place on wildlife farmers and traders will drive the lucrative business farther underground, or induce local officials, eager to spur economic recovery or susceptible to bribery, to tolerate it, as occurred in the wake of SARS. … Outside experts, however, question how well the bans are being enforced, and believe they do not go far enough, as demand is still fuelling a transboundary wildlife supply chain in neighbouring countries." "The Contested Origin of SARS-CoV-2" 26 Nov 2021 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2021.2006442 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2021.2...
troon-lover 4y ago
chasil 4y ago
The first obvious corrective action would be to prohibit gain of function research in level-2 labs. The second would be to prohibit gain of function research in general, especially with funds emerging from a country that has implemented such restrictions as the United States did.
jtc331 4y ago
There’s a natural fork in the road here which is why this is so contentious. The best argument gain of function proponents have for their research (besides weaponization of course) is to create the next big thing in a lab first so that we can figure out how to neutralize it. The argument the anti-GoF advocates have is that creating the next big thing in a lab leads eventually/inevitably to at least one of them getting out. The responses are effectively inherently opposite hence strong disagreement.
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  Nuke Game Theory all over again, with AGI to add too!
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    The fundamental difference with nuclear theory is that nukes don't self-assemble more nukes. The exponential replication of biological pandemics means there are very different optima. Whether that's in favor of GoF or anti-GoF, I can't say. It's a tradeoff between {increased risk of pandemic & more prepared for pandemic} vs {decreased risk of pandemic & less prepared for pandemic}. A sane response probably means we should build two neutral, BSL-4 (+) labs and require by UN treaty that all GoF research take place there, outlawed in the rest of the world, with verification inspection of labs. Of course, you'd be prying power out of the hands of the US/Russia/China, so there'd have to be a pretty big bone to get them to bite. Which would probably look like complete autonomy and confidentiality within the lab, in their respective areas. With strict perimeter and time-quarantine -based controls.
    - telchar 4y ago
      That’s the fundamental difference from the anti-GOF side. The fundamental difference from the pro-GOF side is that understanding exactly how a nuke works gets you no closer to being able to protect a population from nukes because there is no such thing as a nuke vaccine. Your suggestion seems like a likely workable compromise if one of those labs is primarily in the US/Euro sphere and the other is primarily in the Russia/China sphere, with enforced transparency.

igouy 4y ago

"The first obvious corrective action would be to" help China shrink the live animal trade.

igouy 4y ago

"A ban publicly endorsed by Xi Jinping was instituted on the consumption of almost all wild animals. … There are risks, however, that the economic pressures these actions place on wildlife farmers and traders will drive the lucrative business farther underground, or induce local officials, eager to spur economic recovery or susceptible to bribery, to tolerate it, as occurred in the wake of SARS. … Outside experts, however, question how well the bans are being enforced, and believe they do not go far enough, as demand is still fuelling a transboundary wildlife supply chain in neighbouring countries." "The Contested Origin of SARS-CoV-2" 26 Nov 2021 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2021.2006442 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2021.2...

troon-lover 4y ago

chasil 4y ago

The first obvious corrective action would be to prohibit gain of function research in level-2 labs. The second would be to prohibit gain of function research in general, especially with funds emerging from a country that has implemented such restrictions as the United States did.

jtc331 4y ago

There’s a natural fork in the road here which is why this is so contentious. The best argument gain of function proponents have for their research (besides weaponization of course) is to create the next big thing in a lab first so that we can figure out how to neutralize it. The argument the anti-GoF advocates have is that creating the next big thing in a lab leads eventually/inevitably to at least one of them getting out. The responses are effectively inherently opposite hence strong disagreement.

pyinstallwoes 4y ago
Nuke Game Theory all over again, with AGI to add too!
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The fundamental difference with nuclear theory is that nukes don't self-assemble more nukes. The exponential replication of biological pandemics means there are very different optima. Whether that's in favor of GoF or anti-GoF, I can't say. It's a tradeoff between {increased risk of pandemic & more prepared for pandemic} vs {decreased risk of pandemic & less prepared for pandemic}. A sane response probably means we should build two neutral, BSL-4 (+) labs and require by UN treaty that all GoF research take place there, outlawed in the rest of the world, with verification inspection of labs. Of course, you'd be prying power out of the hands of the US/Russia/China, so there'd have to be a pretty big bone to get them to bite. Which would probably look like complete autonomy and confidentiality within the lab, in their respective areas. With strict perimeter and time-quarantine -based controls.
  - telchar 4y ago
    That’s the fundamental difference from the anti-GOF side. The fundamental difference from the pro-GOF side is that understanding exactly how a nuke works gets you no closer to being able to protect a population from nukes because there is no such thing as a nuke vaccine. Your suggestion seems like a likely workable compromise if one of those labs is primarily in the US/Euro sphere and the other is primarily in the Russia/China sphere, with enforced transparency.