zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. danger+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-12-30 23:04:34
Yes, even if this was not developed in a lab, every government in the world is now 100% aware of the potential uses for bioweapons. We should discuss how we would deal with and detect attacks like that in the future.

Furthermore, we should talk about ethical disclosure responsibilities that all countries can agree on for outbreaks going forward as well as what will happen if those rules are not followed. For example, countries around the world should agree that if a country experiences a pandemic outbreak and they don't take certain measures to stop an international spread and disclose updates to the world, they will be liable for the extended outbreak. Allowing a virus like this to spread internationally while covering up details where now more than a million people have died is really grounds for war. Even if the virus was not created in a lab or intentional in any way, any limitation on communication and disclosure can have massive impact.

replies(1): >>IanCal+V2
2. IanCal+V2[view] [source] 2020-12-30 23:23:48
>>danger+(OP)
Seems like a great example of why a bioweapon like this is a terrible idea.

I don't think more disclosures would have helped a lot of the countries. China locked what 10M people in January and lots of the world essentially went "huh". There were reports of welding people into their homes when UK rates were in double digits. We seem to have done little with the already very public information so what would have happened with more?

replies(1): >>mschus+04
◧◩
3. mschus+04[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-12-30 23:30:56
>>IanCal+V2
A bioweapon like coronavirus is a terrible idea in ordinary war, but a massive asset in a last-effort or scorched-earth scenario. I would not be surprised if despite all bans any nuclear (super)power does not have at least three different agents under development.
[go to top]