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
Not really, the Wuhan lab received funding for the studies into gain of function for bat coronaviruses from the NIH (via EcoHealth Alliance). The incentive to bury the origin (if this was the origin) would be high for the US and China both.

>>nmlnn+Dw
...and Ralph Baric (UNC) and Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance) both:

  Will we ever learn the truth about China and the pandemic?
  Two inquiries are 'cloaked in secrecy'
  WHO lets Beijing vet investigators and it
  appoints British scientist with links to Wuhan

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9071191/Will-learn-...