3 ms·

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 pandem

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?
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      > 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? Brilliantly put.
    - estearum 1y ago
      Do we live in a world of airplanes of all makes and models probabilistically falling out of the sky as a guaranteed characteristic of airplanes? If so, yes, focusing on debugging a 737-MAX crash that happened to be completely full and hit an occupied building on the ground (therefore extra horrific/attention-grabbing) would be pointless. Doubly so if the evidence required to root cause it was evaporated upon impact. Triply so if people decided they had to know what caused that specific crash before they could address the probabilistic falling of airplanes out of the sky.
      - timschmidt 1y ago
        > Do we live in a world of airplanes of all makes and models probabilistically falling out of the sky This statement and others you've made about dice and probability suggest that you think actions of humans bear no weight on probability of infection or outbreak. History teaches us otherwise.
        estearum 1y ago
        No, I believe that the specific cause of a previous outbreak does not significantly change the probability distribution of future outbreaks, and therefore informs very little about the appropriate mitigations against future events. Basic statistics and logic teaches us this.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        > I believe that the specific cause of a previous outbreak does not significantly change the probability distribution of future outbreaks If humans didn't learn and adapt, that may be true. And in that scenario we would all be suffering from cholera, still drinking from the community well John Snow identified in 1854. Thankfully, he performed a root cause analysis, made his famous map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#/media/File:Snow-cholera-map.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#/media/File:Snow-... identified the well as the source of the outbreak, and we all changed our behavior in accordance. And the probability of another cholera outbreak is much lower. But further! The probability of other water born illness outbreaks is also reduced. You're so knowledgeable, surely you know all this already.
timschmidt 1y ago
Viruses aren't dice. And past experiences inform future actions. It's called learning, and some of us feel it's worthwhile for no other reason than the knowledge. Put another way, one might ask your same question about polio or smallpox or any other outbreak of any other disease. Everything we learn about every one of them prepares us in some way for the next. It's literally the foundation of epidemiology.
- estearum 1y ago
  If the knowledge were cost-free, I would love to have it! But in reality, it isn't. It creates precisely the faulty logic that we're seeing in this thread, where people believe certain mitigations are justified only after certain conclusions are reached about the origin of COVID. This just isn't true and we do ourselves a disservice to frame the conversation such that people believe that to be the case. If we discover that COVID came from a lab and therefore decide to eliminate GoF research but not increase surveillance efforts (since eliminating GoF research addresses "the threat"), that is bad. If we discover that COVID came from a zoonotic origin and therefore decide to continue doing dangerous GoF research in metropolises, that is bad. If we fail to determine either of these things with sufficient certainty to take action against either threat vector, which is the most probable case, that is really bad. If we instead acknowledge that it hardly matters where COVID came from because it indicates nearly nothing about where the next pandemic will come from, and therefore we need to mitigate both vectors, that is good.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    > It creates precisely the faulty logic that we're seeing in this thread, where people believe certain mitigations are justified only after certain conclusions are reached about the origin of COVID. I'm not following. It seems as though you've run wildly to some conclusion not present in the conversation. Perhaps there's some outside context I'm missing. > If we instead acknowledge that it hardly matters where COVID came from because it indicates nearly nothing about where the next pandemic will come from It seems you would do away with the entire field of epidemiology. I find that the discipline has been quite useful to humanity. I'd like to keep it.

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?
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    > 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? Brilliantly put.
  - estearum 1y ago
    Do we live in a world of airplanes of all makes and models probabilistically falling out of the sky as a guaranteed characteristic of airplanes? If so, yes, focusing on debugging a 737-MAX crash that happened to be completely full and hit an occupied building on the ground (therefore extra horrific/attention-grabbing) would be pointless. Doubly so if the evidence required to root cause it was evaporated upon impact. Triply so if people decided they had to know what caused that specific crash before they could address the probabilistic falling of airplanes out of the sky.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      > Do we live in a world of airplanes of all makes and models probabilistically falling out of the sky This statement and others you've made about dice and probability suggest that you think actions of humans bear no weight on probability of infection or outbreak. History teaches us otherwise.
      - estearum 1y ago
        No, I believe that the specific cause of a previous outbreak does not significantly change the probability distribution of future outbreaks, and therefore informs very little about the appropriate mitigations against future events. Basic statistics and logic teaches us this.
        timschmidt 1y ago
        > I believe that the specific cause of a previous outbreak does not significantly change the probability distribution of future outbreaks If humans didn't learn and adapt, that may be true. And in that scenario we would all be suffering from cholera, still drinking from the community well John Snow identified in 1854. Thankfully, he performed a root cause analysis, made his famous map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#/media/File:Snow-cholera-map.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology#/media/File:Snow-... identified the well as the source of the outbreak, and we all changed our behavior in accordance. And the probability of another cholera outbreak is much lower. But further! The probability of other water born illness outbreaks is also reduced. You're so knowledgeable, surely you know all this already.

timschmidt 1y ago

Viruses aren't dice. And past experiences inform future actions. It's called learning, and some of us feel it's worthwhile for no other reason than the knowledge. Put another way, one might ask your same question about polio or smallpox or any other outbreak of any other disease. Everything we learn about every one of them prepares us in some way for the next. It's literally the foundation of epidemiology.

estearum 1y ago
If the knowledge were cost-free, I would love to have it! But in reality, it isn't. It creates precisely the faulty logic that we're seeing in this thread, where people believe certain mitigations are justified only after certain conclusions are reached about the origin of COVID. This just isn't true and we do ourselves a disservice to frame the conversation such that people believe that to be the case. If we discover that COVID came from a lab and therefore decide to eliminate GoF research but not increase surveillance efforts (since eliminating GoF research addresses "the threat"), that is bad. If we discover that COVID came from a zoonotic origin and therefore decide to continue doing dangerous GoF research in metropolises, that is bad. If we fail to determine either of these things with sufficient certainty to take action against either threat vector, which is the most probable case, that is really bad. If we instead acknowledge that it hardly matters where COVID came from because it indicates nearly nothing about where the next pandemic will come from, and therefore we need to mitigate both vectors, that is good.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  > It creates precisely the faulty logic that we're seeing in this thread, where people believe certain mitigations are justified only after certain conclusions are reached about the origin of COVID. I'm not following. It seems as though you've run wildly to some conclusion not present in the conversation. Perhaps there's some outside context I'm missing. > If we instead acknowledge that it hardly matters where COVID came from because it indicates nearly nothing about where the next pandemic will come from It seems you would do away with the entire field of epidemiology. I find that the discipline has been quite useful to humanity. I'd like to keep it.