4 ms·

The current pandemic was probably caused by such research. But even if you don’t believe that it was probably caused by it, a reasonable person and can admit it

The current pandemic was probably caused by such research. But even if you don’t believe that it was probably caused by it, a reasonable person and can admit it was possibly by it. Multiply that “possibly” out by 6.5M deaths or so and that’s your research death toll. So 1% chance of lab escape? 65,000 deaths. Weigh that against your hypothetical benefits of performing the research and I think it’s hard to conclude that such research is wise.

shadowgovt 4y ago
The 1918 flu involved no lab leak and killed [edit]: 50 million people. I don't care for the game of fatality calculus, but if one is going to play it, that's the enemy humanity is up against.
- AbrahamParangi 4y ago
  Your counterexample would need to be a positive instance, not “other bad things also happen” and that evidence would also need to be strong! Chemotherapy has many terrible side effects but it helps kill cancer! With high certainty! You wouldn’t subject people to chemotherapy if you lacked any evidence that it was helpful.
- giantg2 4y ago
  I thought it was more like 50 million?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Thank you and good catch; I quoted the infection number where I meant to quote the estimated fatalities.
- baja_blast 4y ago
  Yes, but how has the millions we have spent on collecting and modifying wild coronaviruses helped us with this pandemic. Despite over 100 years of technological advancements and the virus is still impossible to stop! So why do we want to risk creating new viruses when the decades of research has proven to be such a colossal failure?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > impossible to stop I don't think one stops a pandemic; IIUC, one gets out in front of it with vaccination. Which we did, thanks to previous mRNA research conducted on other viruses. GOF research is one of the few ways we're aware of to get out in front of vaccinating viruses that don't yet exist but are probable to exist. This argument treads suspiciously close to "Sometimes people use fire to burn a house down, so why do we allow cooking? People should only be allowed to use naturally-occurring fires and not create new ones."
    - baja_blast 4y ago
      And what is the probability that out of the thousands of viruses we identify the exact one that mutates in the exact manner as researches induce in the lab? The possible mutations a virus could take are astronomical, and conditions in a lab using humanized mice models are not something that would ever happen in the wild. Efforts are better spent on surveillance not prediction! https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018-05373-w/d41586-018-05373-w.pdf https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018...
      - jpeloquin 4y ago
        Your article actually argues in favor of the type of research BU was doing because it's being done post-outbreak: "Once an emerging outbreak virus has been identified, it needs to be analysed quickly to establish what type it is; which molecular mechanisms (such as receptor type) enable it to jump between individuals; how it spreads through human populations; and how it affects those infected In other words, at least four kinds of analysis are needed: genomic, virological, epidemiological and clinical.". BU's work is in the genomic and virological categories and addresses the kind of questions the article wants addressed as part of a surveillance strategy. The article strongly opposes making predictions of whether a pathogen will be pandemic because predictions are a rigged game. There are enough factors that you are very unlikely to be correct, and even then a true positive combined with successful mitigations erodes public trust because "the severity of the virus had been overblown". Geologists avoid making predictions of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes for similar reasons. It is not directly opposed to study of pre-pandemic animal pathogens: "Surveys of animals will undoubtedly result in the discovery of many thousands of new viruses. These data will benefit studies of diversity and evolution, and could tell us whether and why some pathogens might jump species boundaries more frequently than others." This makes sense, because study of pre-pandemic pathogens is needed to set a foundation such that the post-outbreak analysis the article wants us to focus on can be completed in a reasonable time frame. The article is arguing for rapid response and against predictions. It's not opposed to basic research of pathogens, and actually supports this specific type of research.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rhacker 4y ago
Well you have to include excess deaths which is at 15M or higher. The reason is that even if you are including drug overdoses, the pandemic was still a catalyst for homelessness and... excess deaths. Covid is still responsible.

shadowgovt 4y ago

The 1918 flu involved no lab leak and killed [edit]: 50 million people. I don't care for the game of fatality calculus, but if one is going to play it, that's the enemy humanity is up against.

AbrahamParangi 4y ago
Your counterexample would need to be a positive instance, not “other bad things also happen” and that evidence would also need to be strong! Chemotherapy has many terrible side effects but it helps kill cancer! With high certainty! You wouldn’t subject people to chemotherapy if you lacked any evidence that it was helpful.
giantg2 4y ago
I thought it was more like 50 million?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Thank you and good catch; I quoted the infection number where I meant to quote the estimated fatalities.
baja_blast 4y ago
Yes, but how has the millions we have spent on collecting and modifying wild coronaviruses helped us with this pandemic. Despite over 100 years of technological advancements and the virus is still impossible to stop! So why do we want to risk creating new viruses when the decades of research has proven to be such a colossal failure?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  > impossible to stop I don't think one stops a pandemic; IIUC, one gets out in front of it with vaccination. Which we did, thanks to previous mRNA research conducted on other viruses. GOF research is one of the few ways we're aware of to get out in front of vaccinating viruses that don't yet exist but are probable to exist. This argument treads suspiciously close to "Sometimes people use fire to burn a house down, so why do we allow cooking? People should only be allowed to use naturally-occurring fires and not create new ones."
  - baja_blast 4y ago
    And what is the probability that out of the thousands of viruses we identify the exact one that mutates in the exact manner as researches induce in the lab? The possible mutations a virus could take are astronomical, and conditions in a lab using humanized mice models are not something that would ever happen in the wild. Efforts are better spent on surveillance not prediction! https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018-05373-w/d41586-018-05373-w.pdf https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-018...
    - jpeloquin 4y ago
      Your article actually argues in favor of the type of research BU was doing because it's being done post-outbreak: "Once an emerging outbreak virus has been identified, it needs to be analysed quickly to establish what type it is; which molecular mechanisms (such as receptor type) enable it to jump between individuals; how it spreads through human populations; and how it affects those infected In other words, at least four kinds of analysis are needed: genomic, virological, epidemiological and clinical.". BU's work is in the genomic and virological categories and addresses the kind of questions the article wants addressed as part of a surveillance strategy. The article strongly opposes making predictions of whether a pathogen will be pandemic because predictions are a rigged game. There are enough factors that you are very unlikely to be correct, and even then a true positive combined with successful mitigations erodes public trust because "the severity of the virus had been overblown". Geologists avoid making predictions of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes for similar reasons. It is not directly opposed to study of pre-pandemic animal pathogens: "Surveys of animals will undoubtedly result in the discovery of many thousands of new viruses. These data will benefit studies of diversity and evolution, and could tell us whether and why some pathogens might jump species boundaries more frequently than others." This makes sense, because study of pre-pandemic pathogens is needed to set a foundation such that the post-outbreak analysis the article wants us to focus on can be completed in a reasonable time frame. The article is arguing for rapid response and against predictions. It's not opposed to basic research of pathogens, and actually supports this specific type of research.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rhacker 4y ago

Well you have to include excess deaths which is at 15M or higher. The reason is that even if you are including drug overdoses, the pandemic was still a catalyst for homelessness and... excess deaths. Covid is still responsible.