zlacker

>>datafl+(OP)
We don't want to know. That may sound a bit glib but I think it's true. What would be the reaction if we could determine the outbreak was due to an unintentional leak? China cannot reimburse the world for the economic damage covid has caused. It cannot be held accountable for all the lives that have been lost. It cannot compensate the world for the diminished quality of life we've all suffered. But there will be plenty of calls for China to do all of that. If covid is the result of Chinese negligence, the reaction and conflict across the planet over what to do about it is going to be absolutely terrible.

And let's not even begin to think what will happen if there were to be evidence that this was an intentional release.

>>Mounta+Ud
I get what you say, but if we ignore how things happened, it's more likely to happen again.

A similar, though obviously still very different, example that came to my mind is Chernobyl. The incident made bad reactor designs and their consequences visible to all, and in the long run, it improved nuclear reactors' safety. How would you feel that after Chernobyl, there was no research on why it happened, and people would have said "well, what's happened happened, there is no way to change that, so why investigate"?

If we never figure out (and we don't even attempt) how the virus came to be (wet market, lab accident, intentional release, eating raw exotic animal, or just a normal mutation, I don't know, I'm not an expert, but saying the options I heard so far), the same circumstances will be continue to be available, and sooner or later, another (potentially worse) pandemic will hit us.

However, as you mentioned, there are negative effects of knowing things, so I wish whenever we do find out what and how happened, nations could do a "blameless post-mortem" (in case it was unintentional).

>>serial+lo
>but if we ignore how things happened, it's more likely to happen again.

This is legitimate reason to have a good investigation and find out the real cause of the virus. From pure technical point of view it is absolutely right.

However because of the cognitional defects of our cave man brain due to the quick social and technology progress outpaced the nature evolution process, the OP's strategy shows wisdom. Let me explain:

There are 3 cases that can present the same reason:

1.Your case which I think it's sincere request for improvement of the procedure to avoid future disaster.

2.There's a known hidden agenda based on some ideology but asking for investigation. A good example is what Dick Cheney and a group of his associates did. They had no interests to understand truth. A reason for investigation is a excuse for fool people

3.(This one is difficult to understand) There's an unintentional hidden agenda mixed with the legitimate reason that the guy who ask for truth might not be aware of hidden agenda. There are a lot of example in another community not available to English reader. The closest example is Australia Prime minister Morrison. It's very controversial and speculative. Most HNers' won't have the necessary insight to understand this example but I believe presenting a weak example is better than nothing.

With case 2 and especially 3, OP's strategy is better than yours. That's why I said OP's shows wisdom: Avoid conflicts and more loss as a whole.

Sometime a correct conclusion in the scope of leaf could be a wrong conclusion in the scope of tree. But maybe correct again in the scope of Forest. I'm not claiming my conclusion is better than yours. I might be in the "tree" level. I'm saying you are looking at a pure technical point of view. OP's thinking is bigger.

(edit) reformat and word correction