5 ms·

There seems to be a fundamental problem with the logic here. It is asserted that because the COVID pandemic had a huge impact that the cause must be investigat

There seems to be a fundamental problem with the logic here. It is asserted that because the COVID pandemic had a huge impact that the cause must be investigated, but if the origin was zoonotic then the origin may remain ambiguous and even if understood there may be no effective way to respond. That is, there may be multiple species functioning as reservoirs in the wild and no way to know for certain and no obvious way to eliminate contact with humans. It seems that the desire for a cause that can be handled with a simple response is leading to this conclusion.

godelski 4y ago
> It is asserted that because the COVID pandemic had a huge impact that the cause must be investigated, This is generally how we focus funds. If things are serious, they get serious funding. I'm not sure if you have seen how many people covid killed, but it was a lot. Plus, humans, despite being really bad at it, love causality. > There seems to be a fundamental problem with the logic here. > but if the origin was zoonotic then the origin may remain ambiguous and even if understood there may be no effective way to respond. Most of science is wandering into the darkness. I'm not sure why you're just telling us to give up before we even start. There's plenty of scientific works that took well over a hundred years to solve. Giving up before you begin is the fundamental problem with logic here. It is better to improve our knowledge than sit by complicity. Your comment is fundamentally anti-scientific.
- m0llusk 4y ago
  The usual thing is to start with ideas about what might be possible. Then hone understanding to narrow possibilities to what is probable and use that to form a hypothesis that can be tested. Deciding from the start that simple causality with easy safety enhancing actions must be the case because that would be desirable fails to account for a critical possibility. If you start investigation by throwing out basic practice then the potential for compelling and broadly accepted results is limited.
  - godelski 4y ago
    > Deciding from the start that simple causality with easy safety enhancing actions must be the case because that would be desirable fails to account for a critical possibility This is a real bad faith read of my comment.

godelski 4y ago

> It is asserted that because the COVID pandemic had a huge impact that the cause must be investigated, This is generally how we focus funds. If things are serious, they get serious funding. I'm not sure if you have seen how many people covid killed, but it was a lot. Plus, humans, despite being really bad at it, love causality. > There seems to be a fundamental problem with the logic here. > but if the origin was zoonotic then the origin may remain ambiguous and even if understood there may be no effective way to respond. Most of science is wandering into the darkness. I'm not sure why you're just telling us to give up before we even start. There's plenty of scientific works that took well over a hundred years to solve. Giving up before you begin is the fundamental problem with logic here. It is better to improve our knowledge than sit by complicity. Your comment is fundamentally anti-scientific.

m0llusk 4y ago
The usual thing is to start with ideas about what might be possible. Then hone understanding to narrow possibilities to what is probable and use that to form a hypothesis that can be tested. Deciding from the start that simple causality with easy safety enhancing actions must be the case because that would be desirable fails to account for a critical possibility. If you start investigation by throwing out basic practice then the potential for compelling and broadly accepted results is limited.
- godelski 4y ago
  > Deciding from the start that simple causality with easy safety enhancing actions must be the case because that would be desirable fails to account for a critical possibility This is a real bad faith read of my comment.