zlacker

>>alwill+(OP)
This is stupid. You can't debate facts. Either SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, or it didn't. Unless somebody comes forward to say, "Yeah, I tore my glove while transporting some test tubes and I got sick two days later," we're never going to know for sure.

The only sensible thing to do is assume that it's at least possible that it was a lab leak and reevaluate the risk-benefit tradeoff of this type of research. That is a debate worth having. The rest is just posturing.

>>cwp+cs1
The issue they are addressing, is that some people assert a natural origin of COVID-19 as fact, when in fact as shown in this article, there is no evidence to support it.

So in one sense you're right, we can only debate the likelihood of finding facts to support the theory of lab leak vs natural origin right now. The aim of this paper is to encourage that debate rather than try to silence it, the way the natural origin proponents seem to want to do.

>>Thoren+Az1
I understand all that. My point is that "debate" is about persuading people to hold your point of view, while this is a question of fact. You can't change a fact no matter how persuasive you are, because facts aren't subject to debate.

Now, in this case, the fact is hidden from us. SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin or it didn't, but we don't have enough evidence to decide that question either way. In the absence of evidence, people are using prejudice to decide what is true, and trying to persuade others to adopt their prejudices. That is utter folly.

What we should do is give up on trying to establish the facts unless and until new evidence emerges. Instead, let's admit that lab leaks are possible, and regardless of whether it happened in this case, it should cause us to reexamine our assessment of the risks inherent to this type of virology. We have a demonstration of how bad we are at containing epidemics, and how damaging even a relatively benign virus is. We don't know what a more deadly virus would do, but we can safely assume it would be very bad.

Ok, I grant that I was a little harsh on the authors of this paper; they're really only saying that the lab leak is plausible, and we should examine it seriously. Fine. But I still think it's a red herring. Even if we could find patient zero and nail down the animal that infected him to conclusively prove a natural origin, we should still revisit our thinking on whether and how to conduct research with viruses. That we're a long way from that sort of conclusion makes it all the more important.