zlacker

I am not arguing to stop science, I don't see the benefit we're hoping to get out of aggressively researching various theories about how exactly the 2019 covid virus spread to humans.

>>boombo+(OP)
Presumably a better understanding of the origins of the 2019 virus would be useful for predicting the likelyhood of a similar outbreak from the same source, or allow people to alter practices to reduce that likelyhood.

>>french+b2
Our current understanding of everything you mention is already good, and there have been no indications that I'm aware of that this case happened in a way that would alter that understanding.

To show my point, even if we aggressively investigate the source and discover it did not originate in a lab, nobody would then argue that it's alright to lower security on such biolabs.

>>boombo+(OP)
Why would we not "aggressively" research it? What if we could have stopped it by catching it early?

Knowing whether it was a lab leak or zoonotic would be a massive hint in the direction to invest in. N=1, but it's a big 1 that would have massive public support.

>>boombo+d4
But people may come up with 80/20 improvements to mitigate the actual source of the virus. Why is improved data a bad thing, in your view?

>>arctic+W6
>What if we could have stopped it by catching it early?

So we should be aggressively researching all the known possible future causes, not wasting time trying to figure out what the exact cause this time was.

>Knowing whether it was a lab leak or zoonotic would be a massive hint in the direction to invest

We know both are possible causes, investing in just the one that caused this leaves us open to the other.

>>sooheo+Ca
I think this data will only lead to results orientated thinking, where we ignore all the other sources we know possibly could have caused it. Heavily financing research into finding the exact source provides no benefit I can find, and could cause further harm.