4 ms·

I mean, good? They did cause a global pandemic costing trillions of dollars and millions of lives, so maybe they should just chill TF out for a while?

tootie 3y ago
Everyone in this thread seems awfully convinced. There is as of yet no proof that's the case. Nor that GoF created the strain. Both are just conjecture. Seems pretty foolish to end valuable research to appease people who fear things they don't understand.
- rurp 3y ago
  We don't know if the virus came from a market either, so why would that be the default position? Especially since that position requires accepting a hell of a coincidence that the virus just happened to emerge near a lab working on gain of function research for that type of virus. China's lack of openness to investigating this should also skew us against giving them the benefit of the doubt, rather than the opposite. Given that lab escapes have happened multiple times and might have caused a global pandemic, the burden of proof should be on showing that the research is worth the significant risk it carries. Defaulting to assuming that the risks are negligible and everyone concerned is scared for no reason is an absurd and dangerous take.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    It's not a court case. There's not a burden of proof. What there is, is a risk analysis, which means you have to consider the risks of any particular action as well as in NOT taking the action. I've seen literally no discussion about the risks of NOT taking the action. I'm reminded of self-driving cars, because we're worried they might lead to the deaths of thousands of people each year. Meanwhile, over a million people die each year in car accidents. Conclusion: best to let those million people die each year.
    - baja_blast 3y ago
      Well we spent over a decade and millions of dollars studying SARS coronaviruses and yet none of that work was of any help in fighting the pandemic. For example Ecohealth which was publicly funded with our tax dollars has still to this day refused to share it's research/samples/data despite being legally obligated to. The most charitable interpretation for refusing to share this information while millions of people are dying is that it is simply useless. So why continue to fund such dangerous research if the research will be hidden when we actually need it?
      - cbsmith 3y ago
        > Well we spent over a decade and millions of dollars studying SARS coronaviruses and yet none of that work was of any help in fighting the pandemic. Wow. Just wow. It's statements like this that make me think we should indeed halt all virology research, and really all medical research and development entirely. We deserve what we get.
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        All government funded work maybe, yeah? It wouldn't make much difference. The consumers of that sort of research are ultimately just pharma companies and they don't use it much because so little replicates to begin with.
        cbsmith 3y ago
        You honestly believe that government funded work didn't "make much difference" with dealing with COVID?
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        Beyond them creating it in the first place you mean? I spent a long time investigating the effectiveness of everything governments did during COVID. None of it worked and a lot of it backfired badly, lockdowns being only one of the most prominent examples. Even the vaccine programme was a disaster: the data claiming otherwise turns out to have all been juked in various ways. We'd have been better off without governments doing anything at all.
  - tootie 3y ago
    Every pandemic ever has been caused by a natural source. Most pandemics happened before virology was a field. The default assumption from the start was animal source until there's proof it was something else.
    - rurp 3y ago
      >Every pandemic ever has been caused by a natural source. That's an awfully bold claim, unless you have proof that covid-19 occurred naturally. Defaulting to your preferred reality and ignoring the potential risks is not a responsible way to guide research policy.
      - tootie 3y ago
        I'm saying every other pandemic in human (or really non-human) history.

tootie 3y ago

Everyone in this thread seems awfully convinced. There is as of yet no proof that's the case. Nor that GoF created the strain. Both are just conjecture. Seems pretty foolish to end valuable research to appease people who fear things they don't understand.

rurp 3y ago
We don't know if the virus came from a market either, so why would that be the default position? Especially since that position requires accepting a hell of a coincidence that the virus just happened to emerge near a lab working on gain of function research for that type of virus. China's lack of openness to investigating this should also skew us against giving them the benefit of the doubt, rather than the opposite. Given that lab escapes have happened multiple times and might have caused a global pandemic, the burden of proof should be on showing that the research is worth the significant risk it carries. Defaulting to assuming that the risks are negligible and everyone concerned is scared for no reason is an absurd and dangerous take.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  It's not a court case. There's not a burden of proof. What there is, is a risk analysis, which means you have to consider the risks of any particular action as well as in NOT taking the action. I've seen literally no discussion about the risks of NOT taking the action. I'm reminded of self-driving cars, because we're worried they might lead to the deaths of thousands of people each year. Meanwhile, over a million people die each year in car accidents. Conclusion: best to let those million people die each year.
  - baja_blast 3y ago
    Well we spent over a decade and millions of dollars studying SARS coronaviruses and yet none of that work was of any help in fighting the pandemic. For example Ecohealth which was publicly funded with our tax dollars has still to this day refused to share it's research/samples/data despite being legally obligated to. The most charitable interpretation for refusing to share this information while millions of people are dying is that it is simply useless. So why continue to fund such dangerous research if the research will be hidden when we actually need it?
    - cbsmith 3y ago
      > Well we spent over a decade and millions of dollars studying SARS coronaviruses and yet none of that work was of any help in fighting the pandemic. Wow. Just wow. It's statements like this that make me think we should indeed halt all virology research, and really all medical research and development entirely. We deserve what we get.
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        All government funded work maybe, yeah? It wouldn't make much difference. The consumers of that sort of research are ultimately just pharma companies and they don't use it much because so little replicates to begin with.
        cbsmith 3y ago
        You honestly believe that government funded work didn't "make much difference" with dealing with COVID?
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        Beyond them creating it in the first place you mean? I spent a long time investigating the effectiveness of everything governments did during COVID. None of it worked and a lot of it backfired badly, lockdowns being only one of the most prominent examples. Even the vaccine programme was a disaster: the data claiming otherwise turns out to have all been juked in various ways. We'd have been better off without governments doing anything at all.
- tootie 3y ago
  Every pandemic ever has been caused by a natural source. Most pandemics happened before virology was a field. The default assumption from the start was animal source until there's proof it was something else.
  - rurp 3y ago
    >Every pandemic ever has been caused by a natural source. That's an awfully bold claim, unless you have proof that covid-19 occurred naturally. Defaulting to your preferred reality and ignoring the potential risks is not a responsible way to guide research policy.
    - tootie 3y ago
      I'm saying every other pandemic in human (or really non-human) history.