zlacker

> how could you possibly not wonder whether our current standards for the sampling and manipulation of poorly-understood pandemic-candidate viruses are adequate?

Wait are we looking to improve and make sure that this doesn’t happen again, or do we just want someone to blame so we can continue to do nothing?

>>mr_toa+(OP)
Both. We need to improve and, if anyone identified by investigation, held them responsible.

>>mr_toa+(OP)
The western world just wants to find an excuse to blame the Chinese, so that they can fulfill their wet dreams of invading China, and starting world war 3 with them.

They were even demanding reparations too! If the Chinese didn’t have ICBM nukes to defend themselves, then you can bet that the western nations would’ve mounted a multi-country alliance to attack China by now.

Read up Jack London’s The Unparalled Invasion from 1910. The Grand Master Plan is all laid out right there for you. It’s disgusting. You’ll want to throw up after you read it. But yet, this is how the white people of the western world sees China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unparalleled_Invasion

>>mr_toa+(OP)
Doesn't it depend on what we find?

For the most probable outcomes, it's about improving (whether it's a lab escape that requires tightening how labs work, or a natural origin that requires, well, something).

Of course, if theoretically this or another pathogen was discovered to be human-made / engineered on purpose (not a real scenario in this case! Purely a hypothetical), then obviously it might have "holding someone responsible" repercussions.

And there might be other scenarios I can't think of that would engender different reactions.

Bottom line, when investigating to discover the truth, I don't think it's valid to beforehand decide on the reason that you're seeking the truth.

>>edanm+Tp
The "on purpose" bit seems highly implausible. AFAIU the ones with the means would have been the Chinese national labs and maybe their US collaborators. But releasing this right in their backyard would be an implausibly idiotic move on the Chinese part. Planting it by the US would both be terribly hard and a predictable own goal.

>>lrem+RE
Would your definition of "on purpose" cover the following?

> In 2015, an international team including two scientists from the Institute published successful research on whether a bat coronavirus could be made to infect HeLa. The team engineered a hybrid virus, combining a bat coronavirus with a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and mimic human disease. The hybrid virus was able to infect human cells.[11][12]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuhan_Institute_of_Virology

You make a good point. The wet market is only 20km from the lab, so if this one is lab-based (and not a bizarre coincidence) it seems much more likely to be an accident.

>>lrem+RE
Just to be clear, I completely agree with you. That's why I said:

> engineered on purpose (not a real scenario in this case! Purely a hypothetical).

Because I'm thinking of future scenarios where this kind of thing happens and we want to uncover the truth, and in which it's more likely to be on purpose. Probably more relevant to a nuclear strike or cyber attack or whatever than a biological weapon, given collateral damage.

>>andai+3G
Oh, I read more into the "on purpose" than probably meant. Yes, a lab accident looks like a completely reasonable hypothesis to me. What I meant is that it's implausible that this has been released on purpose.