4 ms·

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

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.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    > We should do this regardless of whether this pandemic came from a lab. Sadly, the funding to do so will not be made available without reason. Reason which could come from determining the root cause.
    - estearum 1y ago
      Which literally won't happen because the information does not exist in the world. Unless you're expecting a Chinese researcher to identify themselves as patient 0. So your fixation on root causing is having precisely the effect that I mention, which is preventing mitigation.
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        > So your fixation Friend, I don't seem to be the one with a fixation here. Please avoid personal attacks.
        estearum 1y ago
        Your declared imperative? Your stated goal? Your admitted priority? It's not a personal attack, it is referring to a belief that you stated you have. Not sure what's triggering about "fixation" but feel free to swap out any of the above phrases.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        > declared imperative? Your stated goal? Your admitted priority? No, I'm not sure any of those phrases fit a casual conversation on a message board. > Not sure what's triggering Are you triggered? I'm not triggered. I just posted a link, and responded when prompted.
        estearum 1y ago
        Huh, if you don't believe it's important to discover the origin of COVID then I'm not sure what we've been talking about. Have a good day!
tim333 1y ago
I disagree. It can be a waste but there are basic issues that if the origins are natural it makes sense to crank up lab research to counter such things and if the origin was a lab screw up it makes sense to restrict what the labs do. And more subtle issues along those lines. It's a bit like an air crash investigation. You have several million killed and want to understand what happened so as to try to prevent the next one.
- estearum 1y ago
  How specifically does the value of either of those things, which are intended to mitigate the next pandemic, depend on knowing the origin of the previous pandemic? This is like saying it's important to know whether the last dice roll was a 2 before you decide whether to bet on a 4 or 6 coming up next.
  - tim333 1y ago
    Well - I'm not qualified to make specific policy but say for example covid was a result of gain of function experiments being done in Wuhan at BSL-2, you would likely ban that.
    - estearum 1y ago
      GoF research increasing lethality of contagions or contagiousness of lethal pathogens shouldn't be done at BSL-2 regardless, don't you agree?
      - tim333 1y ago
        Indeed but we wouldn't even be talking about that if it were not for the investigations done so far revealing that as a likely cause. And only discovered under court rulings requiring people to divulge information they were otherwise refusing to let out. It's a bit like looking at the 737-MAX crashes and saying the investigation was pointless. Planes should be designed not to crash regardless, don't you agree?
bad_username 1y ago
It will not be a waste of time if the government and corporate actors are held accountable for the suppression of any discourse around what later turned to be factually true.
- estearum 1y ago
  Held accountable in what way? It's legally permissible for the government to do what it did, at least as far as any of the several court cases have been able to find evidence for, which is merely requesting content moderation. It's obviously First Amendment protected speech for social media platforms to suppress whatever discourse they feel like for whatever reason they want. More importantly, neither the legality nor ethical valence of these actions hinge on whether the claims actually end up being true.

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.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  > We should do this regardless of whether this pandemic came from a lab. Sadly, the funding to do so will not be made available without reason. Reason which could come from determining the root cause.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Which literally won't happen because the information does not exist in the world. Unless you're expecting a Chinese researcher to identify themselves as patient 0. So your fixation on root causing is having precisely the effect that I mention, which is preventing mitigation.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      > So your fixation Friend, I don't seem to be the one with a fixation here. Please avoid personal attacks.
      - estearum 1y ago
        Your declared imperative? Your stated goal? Your admitted priority? It's not a personal attack, it is referring to a belief that you stated you have. Not sure what's triggering about "fixation" but feel free to swap out any of the above phrases.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        > declared imperative? Your stated goal? Your admitted priority? No, I'm not sure any of those phrases fit a casual conversation on a message board. > Not sure what's triggering Are you triggered? I'm not triggered. I just posted a link, and responded when prompted.
        estearum 1y ago
        Huh, if you don't believe it's important to discover the origin of COVID then I'm not sure what we've been talking about. Have a good day!

tim333 1y ago

I disagree. It can be a waste but there are basic issues that if the origins are natural it makes sense to crank up lab research to counter such things and if the origin was a lab screw up it makes sense to restrict what the labs do. And more subtle issues along those lines. It's a bit like an air crash investigation. You have several million killed and want to understand what happened so as to try to prevent the next one.

estearum 1y ago
How specifically does the value of either of those things, which are intended to mitigate the next pandemic, depend on knowing the origin of the previous pandemic? This is like saying it's important to know whether the last dice roll was a 2 before you decide whether to bet on a 4 or 6 coming up next.
- tim333 1y ago
  Well - I'm not qualified to make specific policy but say for example covid was a result of gain of function experiments being done in Wuhan at BSL-2, you would likely ban that.
  - estearum 1y ago
    GoF research increasing lethality of contagions or contagiousness of lethal pathogens shouldn't be done at BSL-2 regardless, don't you agree?
    - tim333 1y ago
      Indeed but we wouldn't even be talking about that if it were not for the investigations done so far revealing that as a likely cause. And only discovered under court rulings requiring people to divulge information they were otherwise refusing to let out. It's a bit like looking at the 737-MAX crashes and saying the investigation was pointless. Planes should be designed not to crash regardless, don't you agree?

bad_username 1y ago

It will not be a waste of time if the government and corporate actors are held accountable for the suppression of any discourse around what later turned to be factually true.

estearum 1y ago
Held accountable in what way? It's legally permissible for the government to do what it did, at least as far as any of the several court cases have been able to find evidence for, which is merely requesting content moderation. It's obviously First Amendment protected speech for social media platforms to suppress whatever discourse they feel like for whatever reason they want. More importantly, neither the legality nor ethical valence of these actions hinge on whether the claims actually end up being true.