zlacker

While Chinese authorities may very well be to blame for this, your reasoning is flawed. Governments hide a lot of things for a lot of reasons, whether nefarious or not, especially when it comes to sharing with foreign powers.

The "argument" that "if you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is is just as worthless when promoting encryption backdoors as it is now.

>>buran7+(OP)
I’m not sure you can compare the two, “why are you encrypting your data/communication” is very different then “why are you not sharing the early virus samples”

>>katbyt+k
I looked at the principle of claiming that "if you're innocent why hide things". And that's exactly like saying that if you're not breaking the law then you have no reason to hide your communication from authorities because "they'll only look when they suspect something and that would just prove your innocence". If anything, accusing someone and asking them to prove their innocence opens the door to false accusations meant only to force the other side to leak some information. A principle you wouldn't want applied to you isn't a very good one.

>>buran7+Fn
This principle applies to individuals, not to the governments. The latter are created by people to serve people and must be open and transparent. The alternative is being corrupt.

>>fsflov+To
> must be open and transparent. The alternative is being corrupt.

I think you oversimplified to get to this binary view. Where does "national security" fit in this "transparent or corrupt" philosophy? State secrets? Classified information and intelligence?

Can the Chinese (or other) authorities simply raise deep concerns about whatever they want and expect US (or other) authorities to provide information as needed to prove the contrary?

>>buran7+(OP)
Then The WHO should be saying "we can't eliminate the possibility of a lab origin because China is engaging in a massive coverup and won't let us investigate anything" rather than "Laboratory contamination can be excluded because...".

>>Americ+Hm1
If that is indeed their conclusion then yes, it should say that, perhaps in a somewhat less biased phrasing. In a similar vein, the Reuters title might be called "US government with extremely poor transparency track record raises deep self-serving hypocritical concerns over international report that doesn't paint US enemy in a bad enough light".

>>buran7+cp1
Media biases are a different issue. The WHO’s problem is that it’s supposed to be a politically neutral internationally governing body, and It’s conduct during the pandemic has lead many people to believe that it is operating according to a political agenda. The damage The WHO (and other public health institutions) have done to their trustworthiness has already had will continue to have serious consequences going forward. Anti-vaxx has never been so popular.

>>buran7+1E
I indeed intentionally oversimplified that, but consider how NSA is doing illegal things for the sake of "national security", because they are not tranparent or checked by anyone.