zlacker

>>delbar+(OP)
Whenever this topic comes up, the discussion seems to consist largely of _extremely_ strong opinions against the perfectly plausible hypothesis (don't forget, the evidence of zoonotic origin is equally thin on the ground).

My question is, why? What does it matter whether the virus originated from a lab or from a wet market - it isn't any more dangerous if it came from a lab, nor does knowing the origin really help dealing with this crisis at all.

It is certainly interesting to know where it did originate, and that knowledge could inform a debate on the future of (respectively) wet markets and animal husbandry practices, or BSL facilities, but these don't strike me as particularly emotionally charged topics, and in any case the posts I'm referring to don't mention these debates...

Anybody care to explain why you would respond so strongly to claims of lab origin?

>>bearbi+d7
Because it would make China liable, and for the majority of individuals, their stance on China as a good actor in global matters is now linked to their American political allegiance. It is hard for many folks to reconcile both.

>>DevKoa+89
How does it make China more liable. Allowing wet markets to exist is a equal or greater threat than shoddy research labs.

>>deevia+Ei
Are you suggesting that people should not be able to hunt for wild foods? Or that they shouldn’t be able to sell what they catch or kill? Or something else?

>>amanap+7k
If it's proven that wet markets are a breeding ground for novel viruses, then yeah, clearly they should be banned.