44 ms·

> We've still not proven that COVID was a lab-leak We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. > so we're attempting to say that something that otherwise has

> We've still not proven that COVID was a lab-leak We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. > so we're attempting to say that something that otherwise has a very safe record is dangerous based on what might have happened. I'm not sure how good the record really is[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...

xracy 3y ago
> We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P... Your second point is better taken.
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  I think if there's even a 49% chance that a certain kind of research caused the pandemic, it should be banned, because that's too high. Hell, even a 1% chance of another pandemic is too high, but I don't think any honest evaluator can put the odds of it having been a lab leak that low. It's not 100%, but I think anyone being honest with themselves about the evidence has to put it over at least 20%, and I think as high as 80%.
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  Burden of proof is a tragically misapplied concept. The question is what position should be the default given some uncertainty? This isn't decided in a vacuum. The default should be decided based on the facts and utility estimates of various outcomes where relevant. In the case where the issue is of purely academic interest, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. When the issue has real world consequences, then utility estimates of various outcomes are relevant. Who has the burden to demonstrate that GoF research is safe given our uncertainty of whether COVID was lab created and subsequently leaked? This issue isn't of purely academic interest. We must consider the costs to society of a leak vs the benefits of that research. From where I'm sitting, the benefits are non-existent relative to the costs. Given the massive negative utility of a leak compared to benefits of the research, the burden of proof is on those who want to continue doing GoF research to demonstrate safety and value.
- TacticalCoder 3y ago
  GP is totally right to point to you that it hasn't been proven it wasn't a lab leak either. Your burden of proof would make some sense if, of all the places in the world, the outbreak didn't happen near a "leading" lab in GoF research on bat viruses. I mean: if people were to die due to irradiation near some uranium-enrichment facility but there was no proof that any radioactive material leaked, the reasonable stance would still be that some fuck up happened in that uranium-enrichment facility. People would have to proof it was a lab-leak if the outbreak happened in some city where there weren't any research done on viruses. But as it is an undisputable fact that the biggest pandemic in modern history happened due to a virus outbreak beginning in a place exceptionally close to a lab doing research on similar viruses, the burden of proof is on those claiming it's not a lab leak. Moreover it's a known fact communism uses propaganda as one of its most powerful tool so nothing coming out of chinese officials can be trusted. You want to point out it wasn't proven it was a lab leak, which is true. But people can point out it wasn't proven it wasn't a lab leak either. And that is totally on-topic.

xracy 3y ago

> We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P... Your second point is better taken.

earthboundkid 3y ago
I think if there's even a 49% chance that a certain kind of research caused the pandemic, it should be banned, because that's too high. Hell, even a 1% chance of another pandemic is too high, but I don't think any honest evaluator can put the odds of it having been a lab leak that low. It's not 100%, but I think anyone being honest with themselves about the evidence has to put it over at least 20%, and I think as high as 80%.
hackinthebochs 3y ago
Burden of proof is a tragically misapplied concept. The question is what position should be the default given some uncertainty? This isn't decided in a vacuum. The default should be decided based on the facts and utility estimates of various outcomes where relevant. In the case where the issue is of purely academic interest, the burden of proof is on those making the claim. When the issue has real world consequences, then utility estimates of various outcomes are relevant. Who has the burden to demonstrate that GoF research is safe given our uncertainty of whether COVID was lab created and subsequently leaked? This issue isn't of purely academic interest. We must consider the costs to society of a leak vs the benefits of that research. From where I'm sitting, the benefits are non-existent relative to the costs. Given the massive negative utility of a leak compared to benefits of the research, the burden of proof is on those who want to continue doing GoF research to demonstrate safety and value.
TacticalCoder 3y ago
GP is totally right to point to you that it hasn't been proven it wasn't a lab leak either. Your burden of proof would make some sense if, of all the places in the world, the outbreak didn't happen near a "leading" lab in GoF research on bat viruses. I mean: if people were to die due to irradiation near some uranium-enrichment facility but there was no proof that any radioactive material leaked, the reasonable stance would still be that some fuck up happened in that uranium-enrichment facility. People would have to proof it was a lab-leak if the outbreak happened in some city where there weren't any research done on viruses. But as it is an undisputable fact that the biggest pandemic in modern history happened due to a virus outbreak beginning in a place exceptionally close to a lab doing research on similar viruses, the burden of proof is on those claiming it's not a lab leak. Moreover it's a known fact communism uses propaganda as one of its most powerful tool so nothing coming out of chinese officials can be trusted. You want to point out it wasn't proven it was a lab leak, which is true. But people can point out it wasn't proven it wasn't a lab leak either. And that is totally on-topic.