11 ms·

> I think avoiding many if not most gain-of-function experiments is a reasonable lesson to learn from this pandemic. Help me out, I don't see the thread of log

by xracy 3y ago

> I think avoiding many if not most gain-of-function experiments is a reasonable lesson to learn from this pandemic. Help me out, I don't see the thread of logic from your previous points...

fabian2k 3y ago
Certain gain of function experiments, e.g. modifying an animal virus to be able to infect humans could create viruses that might behave very similar to SARS-CoV2 if leaked. We now know more about the potential consequences of such a leak, we have a full-blown pandemic as a benchmark. If those experiments have a chance to repeat a similar pandemic, I don't think any of them are worth that risk.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Unfortunately, that sort of GOF research is at the top of the list of GOF utility. Because animal virii making the jump to humans is the risk factor the international epidemiology community tries to protect against, for the very reasons you've highlighted: the harm when it occurs and the frequency with which it occurs (rare, but often enough to create a once-a-century firestorm, at least). Spanish Flu was likely an animal-jump, baed on research done on corpses retrieved from the arctic circle. H1N1 was an animal jump. HIV was a multi-virus infection followed by an animal jump. If COVID was human-made and not an animal-jump, that's still three deadly natural pandemics that we want this research to be able to prevent in the future.
  - sterlind 3y ago
    Do you actually need GoF research to prevent animal spillovers? Did GoF research help us develop the COVID vaccines? Or does GoF research mostly demonstrate the risks of spillover? Because I think we're now well aware of the risks, and ought to avoid poking the bear any further.
    - chaostheory 3y ago
      Humans would need less animal contact. To end this, you’d have to end the animal agriculture industry. I am not a vegan.
    - kosievdmerwe 3y ago
      I literally can't think of a more dangerous kind of research that we could be doing as a species than messing around and making viruses more dangerous. If we really have to do it, then we can do it in the middle of a desert with quarantine procedures instead of near/in population centers.
      - cbsmith 3y ago
        > I literally can't think of a more dangerous kind of research that we could be doing as a species than messing around and making viruses more dangerous. You have a very limited imagination. ;-) I assure you that extensive research into biological (not involving viruses), chemical, and nuclear weapons... and really a wide variety of weapons research is easily more dangerous. There's plenty of opportunity in other areas like materials science, genetics, etc., as well. > If we really have to do it, then we can do it in the middle of a desert with quarantine procedures instead of near/in population centers. Now you'll want to have an ultra-secure means of transporting highly dangerous biological samples, not to mention research teams & observers, at very high speeds to the middle of a desert. Are you sure you've improved the risk profile?
        Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        I assume the biological samples need to get transported at some point anyway. The researchers would need to live on-site. Yes this would dramatically increase the cost. Personally, I think we just shouldn't do this at all.
        cbsmith 3y ago
        > I assume the biological samples need to get transported at some point anyway. The researchers would need to live on-site. Yes this would dramatically increase the cost. If you're worried about lab contamination, the risk is from the researchers moving amongst the population. I agree that you'd rather not, but I don't agree that regularly putting them on planes to and from major population centers really reduces the risk. > Personally, I think we just shouldn't do this at all. [Shrugs]. Some people are pro-pandemic.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    > that sort of GOF research is at the top of the list of GOF utility According to the virologists who do it, not anyone else. Virologists conspicuously had no role in fighting COVID and didn't seem to contribute any particular knowledge to the NPIs or vaccines.
    - cbsmith 3y ago
      > According to the virologists who do it, not anyone else. That's not true. > Virologists conspicuously had no role in fighting COVID and didn't seem to contribute any particular knowledge to the NPIs or vaccines. I can't imagine your basis for saying this. Virologists isolated the signature genetic sequences for COVID-19. That was the basis for the development of testing & vaccines for COVID-19 (...and if you think they aren't involved in development of tests and vaccines beyond that...).
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        Sequencing is something done by many types of biologist, there's nothing special about virologists there. No, this is a profession that really should not exist at all. GoF was banned in the past without consequence beyond causing them to engage in coverups of their own psychotic experimentations, it can be banned again with no loss to humanity. COVID simply wouldn't have happened if these experiments were banned.
        shadowgovt 3y ago
        There is not sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID would not have happened if these experiments were banned.
        cbsmith 3y ago
        > Sequencing is something done by many types of biologist, there's nothing special about virologists there. Sequencing can be done by a high school student in a lab. Of course, to obtain a sequence for a novel virus, you have to do a lot more than that, but let's pretend that's all you have to do; the fact remains that the sequencing wasn't done by a high school student in a lab, but by virologists. I agree that everything virologists do could be done by non-virologists. That doesn't mean that it's what happened, nor that it'd be a good idea.
  - nextaccountic 3y ago
    > HIV was a multi-virus infection followed by an animal jump Can you expand on the multi-virus infection thing?
    - winocm 3y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234451/
  - natch 3y ago
    > If COVID was human-made and not an animal-jump These are not the only two options. An animal virus could be enhanced in a lab, then jump to humans, and then the “animal-jump” terminology is just a misdirection away from the lab work. “Human-made” as a term is a similar misdirection in this scenario, trying to make the human involvement claims sound overstated, again trying to point away from the lab. I’m not saying you are doing misdirection, but I think some people framing it that way are. I think it’s important to recognize the full nuance of what is likely in the middle, instead of just looking at highly unlikely and opposed extreme scenarios.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  > If those experiments have a chance to repeat a similar pandemic, I don't think any of them are worth that risk. You're saying that without regard to the measure of risk, or what risks exist if we don't do those experiments.
  - whythre 3y ago
    What risk could possibly be worse than a global pandemic? That seems to be what gain of function research purports to be studying to prevent- and in this case it appears that the research virus caused the very thing it was supposed to (indirectly) prevent.

by xracy 3y ago

> I think avoiding many if not most gain-of-function experiments is a reasonable lesson to learn from this pandemic. Help me out, I don't see the thread of logic from your previous points...

fabian2k 3y ago

Certain gain of function experiments, e.g. modifying an animal virus to be able to infect humans could create viruses that might behave very similar to SARS-CoV2 if leaked. We now know more about the potential consequences of such a leak, we have a full-blown pandemic as a benchmark. If those experiments have a chance to repeat a similar pandemic, I don't think any of them are worth that risk.

shadowgovt 3y ago
Unfortunately, that sort of GOF research is at the top of the list of GOF utility. Because animal virii making the jump to humans is the risk factor the international epidemiology community tries to protect against, for the very reasons you've highlighted: the harm when it occurs and the frequency with which it occurs (rare, but often enough to create a once-a-century firestorm, at least). Spanish Flu was likely an animal-jump, baed on research done on corpses retrieved from the arctic circle. H1N1 was an animal jump. HIV was a multi-virus infection followed by an animal jump. If COVID was human-made and not an animal-jump, that's still three deadly natural pandemics that we want this research to be able to prevent in the future.
- sterlind 3y ago
  Do you actually need GoF research to prevent animal spillovers? Did GoF research help us develop the COVID vaccines? Or does GoF research mostly demonstrate the risks of spillover? Because I think we're now well aware of the risks, and ought to avoid poking the bear any further.
  - chaostheory 3y ago
    Humans would need less animal contact. To end this, you’d have to end the animal agriculture industry. I am not a vegan.
  - kosievdmerwe 3y ago
    I literally can't think of a more dangerous kind of research that we could be doing as a species than messing around and making viruses more dangerous. If we really have to do it, then we can do it in the middle of a desert with quarantine procedures instead of near/in population centers.
    - cbsmith 3y ago
      > I literally can't think of a more dangerous kind of research that we could be doing as a species than messing around and making viruses more dangerous. You have a very limited imagination. ;-) I assure you that extensive research into biological (not involving viruses), chemical, and nuclear weapons... and really a wide variety of weapons research is easily more dangerous. There's plenty of opportunity in other areas like materials science, genetics, etc., as well. > If we really have to do it, then we can do it in the middle of a desert with quarantine procedures instead of near/in population centers. Now you'll want to have an ultra-secure means of transporting highly dangerous biological samples, not to mention research teams & observers, at very high speeds to the middle of a desert. Are you sure you've improved the risk profile?
      - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
        I assume the biological samples need to get transported at some point anyway. The researchers would need to live on-site. Yes this would dramatically increase the cost. Personally, I think we just shouldn't do this at all.
        cbsmith 3y ago
        > I assume the biological samples need to get transported at some point anyway. The researchers would need to live on-site. Yes this would dramatically increase the cost. If you're worried about lab contamination, the risk is from the researchers moving amongst the population. I agree that you'd rather not, but I don't agree that regularly putting them on planes to and from major population centers really reduces the risk. > Personally, I think we just shouldn't do this at all. [Shrugs]. Some people are pro-pandemic.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  > that sort of GOF research is at the top of the list of GOF utility According to the virologists who do it, not anyone else. Virologists conspicuously had no role in fighting COVID and didn't seem to contribute any particular knowledge to the NPIs or vaccines.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    > According to the virologists who do it, not anyone else. That's not true. > Virologists conspicuously had no role in fighting COVID and didn't seem to contribute any particular knowledge to the NPIs or vaccines. I can't imagine your basis for saying this. Virologists isolated the signature genetic sequences for COVID-19. That was the basis for the development of testing & vaccines for COVID-19 (...and if you think they aren't involved in development of tests and vaccines beyond that...).
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      Sequencing is something done by many types of biologist, there's nothing special about virologists there. No, this is a profession that really should not exist at all. GoF was banned in the past without consequence beyond causing them to engage in coverups of their own psychotic experimentations, it can be banned again with no loss to humanity. COVID simply wouldn't have happened if these experiments were banned.
      - shadowgovt 3y ago
        There is not sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis that COVID would not have happened if these experiments were banned.
      - cbsmith 3y ago
        > Sequencing is something done by many types of biologist, there's nothing special about virologists there. Sequencing can be done by a high school student in a lab. Of course, to obtain a sequence for a novel virus, you have to do a lot more than that, but let's pretend that's all you have to do; the fact remains that the sequencing wasn't done by a high school student in a lab, but by virologists. I agree that everything virologists do could be done by non-virologists. That doesn't mean that it's what happened, nor that it'd be a good idea.
- nextaccountic 3y ago
  > HIV was a multi-virus infection followed by an animal jump Can you expand on the multi-virus infection thing?
  - winocm 3y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234451/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3234451/
- natch 3y ago
  > If COVID was human-made and not an animal-jump These are not the only two options. An animal virus could be enhanced in a lab, then jump to humans, and then the “animal-jump” terminology is just a misdirection away from the lab work. “Human-made” as a term is a similar misdirection in this scenario, trying to make the human involvement claims sound overstated, again trying to point away from the lab. I’m not saying you are doing misdirection, but I think some people framing it that way are. I think it’s important to recognize the full nuance of what is likely in the middle, instead of just looking at highly unlikely and opposed extreme scenarios.
cbsmith 3y ago
> If those experiments have a chance to repeat a similar pandemic, I don't think any of them are worth that risk. You're saying that without regard to the measure of risk, or what risks exist if we don't do those experiments.
- whythre 3y ago
  What risk could possibly be worse than a global pandemic? That seems to be what gain of function research purports to be studying to prevent- and in this case it appears that the research virus caused the very thing it was supposed to (indirectly) prevent.