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
Entertaining the question is dangerous (I don’t believe it, but for the sake of argument)...

My next question would be “why”? What would be the CCP’s motives to study and modify the virus?

Is it to test whether different changes would make the virus more/less communicable?

Is it to prevent another MERS SARS?

Is it to tailor disease for certain ethnicities? CCP doesn’t appear to have qualms about getting rid of troublesome minority populations, as long as they have some amount of deniability to rely on.

Is it to stress test global medical science and institutions?

I’ll keep an open mind in that if (and it’s a large if) there are respected scientists who present evidence of it being a lab modified virus, then the motive must be understood and fast.

Edit: I will say that China isn’t helping its case by impeding research and publishing of any studies simply trying to establish whether COVID even crossed from local (wild) bat populations; and promoting only theories that claim COVID came from elsewhere.

>>nobody+6s
I don’t really get why even entertaining the question is dangerous, and I can imagine some reasonable justifications for why they’d be doing that kind of research (which I believe is called “Gain of Function”). Understanding what mutations could make a virus more communicable is something that I think would benefit everyone. The dangerous questions really do come in at your last hypothetical, which obviously signals extreme nefarious intent and would require extraordinary evidence.