zlacker

Good, I'm glad we agree that investigation matters :)

>>engine+(OP)
You've completely misunderstood my point. My point is that we're McDonalds - not Chipotle. Should McDonalds be investigating Chipotle's problems or their own? It's really that simple...

If you believe McDonalds in this analogy should be investigating the origins of Chipotle's problems as opposed to resolving their ongoing issue then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

>>endisn+l
American Airlines can't reduce its risk by reading Delta's FAA incident reports?

>>neolog+z41
That situation isn't analogous, but American Airlines would reduce its risk more by reading its own incident reports compared to Delta's, yes. In general focusing on one's own failings is superior to focusing on another's.

Are you serious?

>>endisn+l
I don't understand your analogy. If a sizeable population of the world got sick from eating at Chipotle...and it was easily communicably spreadable infecting even those that never ate there...and people died as a result (3 MILLION)...and it caused massive world-wide economic damage...I'd bet they'd be quite interested in the cause no matter where they worked. In your analogy, the impact wasn't just limited to those who ate at Chipotle. It was everyone.

>>endisn+X81
> reduce its risk more by reading its own

Ok but they can do both, right? I mean, I can improve my performance by looking at my own performance, but also watching others.

Moreover, the US can exert a lot of pressure on other countries to meet certain standards and reduce risk. Knowing what went wrong will help determine standards.

It's not like lab-leak-causes-disease only happens once. This happens all the time, just like aircraft incidents. If incidents weren't investigated and tracked, planes would be riskier than they are.