4 ms·

There's some debate in these comments about the origins of Covid, so I figured it'd be worth dropping the following testimony on the topic which I found eye ope

There's some debate in these comments about the origins of Covid, so I figured it'd be worth dropping the following testimony on the topic which I found eye opening: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Quay-2024-06-18.pdf https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Qu... It references a great deal of information from https://project-evidence.github.io/ https://project-evidence.github.io/ And I've found Jamie Metzl's collection of resources interesting as well: https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/ https://jamiemetzl.com/origins-of-sars-cov-2/

rhubarbtree 1y ago
That’s a very interesting read. What were the arguments against? Was this dismissed?
- tim333 1y ago
  The debate goes on and both sides are fairly fixed in their views. I think the evidence is strong in favour of a lab origin but wikipedia still is against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2
  - rhubarbtree 1y ago
    Well, the Wikipedia article is clearly incorrect - the lab leak hypothesis is supported by evidence. Even if you don’t think it’s true, you have to agree that there is at least some supporting evidence that adds weight to the hypothesis. Not a great advert for Wikipedia. The absolutist statement clearly indicates political bias rather than objective enquiry. I knew that some people still think the market hypothesis is true (despite the lack of good evidence), I was more interested in the response to this particular testimonial? For example, did anyone push back on specific points? I ran the doc through AI and asked it to form the strongest counter arguments it could muster. It didn’t do well and concluded lab leak was more likely than market.
    - tim333 1y ago
      Yeah. I was saddened by Wikipedia's take as I always thought of it as an open platform where you could put facts for both sides of a debate but on the lab leak they have very much taken a one sided approach.
estearum 1y ago
IMO while the debate around COVID's origin is interesting, it's pretty much definitionally a waste of time. 1) We'll never actually know the answer 2) Even if we did, it wouldn't change anything about what we ought to do There's no way China would be "punished" for something if it was a lab leak, and there's no way that [the actually dangerous end of] GoF research is a good risk-reward tradeoff anymore in light of instant mRNA vaccines. Every breath spent pointing fingers on origin is another breath not spent on the remediations we have to do no matter who's responsible.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  > We'll never actually know the answer We feel differently about this. Personally, I find all the evidence collected so far quite compelling. And I believe humanity has a responsibility to our children to investigate all worldwide pandemics to the fullest extent possible. > Even if we did, it wouldn't change anything about what we ought to do Whether or not it would change what we ought to do, it would absolutely change what we actually do. I think there would be broad public support for increased safety procedures at a minimum. The testimony I linked offers additional suggestions. Your scenario of ending all GoF research might be on the table, or might not, but there is a broad range of less dramatic options available. Among them, locating GoF research labs away from densely populated metropolitan areas and international airports.
  - estearum 1y ago
    > Whether or not it would change what we ought to do, it would absolutely change what we actually do. I actually think the obsession with root cause makes it less likely we'll create the interventions we need. First because it suggests to people that the root cause of this pandemic changes the risk calculation for future pandemics (it doesn't) and secondly because the mitigations of one root cause are distinct from the mitigations for another. And we actually need to mitigate both zoonotic and lab leak threat vectors. > Your scenario of ending all GoF research might be on the table To be clear I did not suggest this. GoF is an extremely broad term which includes e.g. mutating E. coli to produce insulin or other biologics. Increasing contagiousness of a lethal agent or increasing lethality of a contagious agent should become much more of a no-go zone though. That's a small subset of GoF research. > locating GoF research labs away from densely populated metropolitan areas and international airports. We should do this regardless of whether this pandemic came from a lab.

rhubarbtree 1y ago

That’s a very interesting read. What were the arguments against? Was this dismissed?

tim333 1y ago
The debate goes on and both sides are fairly fixed in their views. I think the evidence is strong in favour of a lab origin but wikipedia still is against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2
- rhubarbtree 1y ago
  Well, the Wikipedia article is clearly incorrect - the lab leak hypothesis is supported by evidence. Even if you don’t think it’s true, you have to agree that there is at least some supporting evidence that adds weight to the hypothesis. Not a great advert for Wikipedia. The absolutist statement clearly indicates political bias rather than objective enquiry. I knew that some people still think the market hypothesis is true (despite the lack of good evidence), I was more interested in the response to this particular testimonial? For example, did anyone push back on specific points? I ran the doc through AI and asked it to form the strongest counter arguments it could muster. It didn’t do well and concluded lab leak was more likely than market.
  - tim333 1y ago
    Yeah. I was saddened by Wikipedia's take as I always thought of it as an open platform where you could put facts for both sides of a debate but on the lab leak they have very much taken a one sided approach.

estearum 1y ago

IMO while the debate around COVID's origin is interesting, it's pretty much definitionally a waste of time. 1) We'll never actually know the answer 2) Even if we did, it wouldn't change anything about what we ought to do There's no way China would be "punished" for something if it was a lab leak, and there's no way that [the actually dangerous end of] GoF research is a good risk-reward tradeoff anymore in light of instant mRNA vaccines. Every breath spent pointing fingers on origin is another breath not spent on the remediations we have to do no matter who's responsible.

timschmidt 1y ago
> We'll never actually know the answer We feel differently about this. Personally, I find all the evidence collected so far quite compelling. And I believe humanity has a responsibility to our children to investigate all worldwide pandemics to the fullest extent possible. > Even if we did, it wouldn't change anything about what we ought to do Whether or not it would change what we ought to do, it would absolutely change what we actually do. I think there would be broad public support for increased safety procedures at a minimum. The testimony I linked offers additional suggestions. Your scenario of ending all GoF research might be on the table, or might not, but there is a broad range of less dramatic options available. Among them, locating GoF research labs away from densely populated metropolitan areas and international airports.
- estearum 1y ago
  > Whether or not it would change what we ought to do, it would absolutely change what we actually do. I actually think the obsession with root cause makes it less likely we'll create the interventions we need. First because it suggests to people that the root cause of this pandemic changes the risk calculation for future pandemics (it doesn't) and secondly because the mitigations of one root cause are distinct from the mitigations for another. And we actually need to mitigate both zoonotic and lab leak threat vectors. > Your scenario of ending all GoF research might be on the table To be clear I did not suggest this. GoF is an extremely broad term which includes e.g. mutating E. coli to produce insulin or other biologics. Increasing contagiousness of a lethal agent or increasing lethality of a contagious agent should become much more of a no-go zone though. That's a small subset of GoF research. > locating GoF research labs away from densely populated metropolitan areas and international airports. We should do this regardless of whether this pandemic came from a lab.