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
It would have vast consequences if this came from a lab. It would be the most deadly example of "science gone wrong" ever: 1.8 million deaths, comparable to the Holocaust, from a single disaster in a single lab. We would seriously have to rethink how we did virus biology. And probably there would be repercussions throughout the whole of science. We might e.g. start to worry much more about the risks of many kinds of scientific experimentation.

>>dash2+aa
But it doesn't matter. We know that it could have come from a lab, even if it didn't. So why shouldn't we be asking those serious questions anyway?

>>jtbayl+ij
Yes, even if this was not developed in a lab, every government in the world is now 100% aware of the potential uses for bioweapons. We should discuss how we would deal with and detect attacks like that in the future.

Furthermore, we should talk about ethical disclosure responsibilities that all countries can agree on for outbreaks going forward as well as what will happen if those rules are not followed. For example, countries around the world should agree that if a country experiences a pandemic outbreak and they don't take certain measures to stop an international spread and disclose updates to the world, they will be liable for the extended outbreak. Allowing a virus like this to spread internationally while covering up details where now more than a million people have died is really grounds for war. Even if the virus was not created in a lab or intentional in any way, any limitation on communication and disclosure can have massive impact.

>>danger+Do
Seems like a great example of why a bioweapon like this is a terrible idea.

I don't think more disclosures would have helped a lot of the countries. China locked what 10M people in January and lots of the world essentially went "huh". There were reports of welding people into their homes when UK rates were in double digits. We seem to have done little with the already very public information so what would have happened with more?