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
The liability of China is the main question here. If it was released from a lab (and I don't think it was), China is liable to this world pandemic which is a huge thing.

>>delbar+S7
But liable to what end? What international jurisdiction will force China to “pay”?

America destroyed Iraq on lies, but what has that liability cost them?

>>adamcs+Uj
You don't need to force China to pay. Typically what is done is that foreign assets are legally seized, for example, Chinese state assets in the West, if China refuses to pay for damages.