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
Its simple. Humans are addicted to blame thinking. People instinctively expect a just world, where bad things are a consequence of some form of sin from bad people and good things are a consequence of some virtue from good people and all problems are some sinners fault. A large fraction of people can't comprehend a world where bad things happen to them and nothing/no one is to blame. In the absence of reason they invent one. My kid got autism? I bet it was the vaccine shots. School shooting? I bet it was those violent video games. Internet connection went down? I bet it was because I just tried to scan a document (yes this is a real example). Any explanation, no matter how spurious, is more palpable to the human mind than "this is random and out of our control".

Throw some confirmation bias on top of it. The easiest group to blame for bad things is the group you already disliked. Traditionally this means foreigners, other races, and heretics. Blaming China both let's people have their imagined just world and vindicates whatever pre-existing hard-line stance they had on China. It's no secret that a lot of people already had a hard-lie stance on China for unrelated reasons (Eg the trade war).

In conclusion the human logical apparatus is bugged, no one is releasing any patches, and the whole issue is emotional because who you blame is tribal signaling dressed up as rational interest.

>>IIAOPS+dw
They covered it up just like the USSR covered up the Chernobyl nuclear accident, so China is at the very least liable for doing that, which led to a delayed response to the outbreak. Responsible parties were doctor Zhang Yongzhen who published the virus sequence, enabling research on vaccines, Li Wenliang and his colleagues who shared the news about the outbreak and were punished for doing so.

>>petre+9Y1
There's a world of difference between "China has some liability for delaying the response" and "China intentionally engineered this in a lab". The reasonable argument of the former is drowned out by emotional blame-thinkers who have adapted the latter.