Would the logical conclusion from the "escaped a lab" theory be that China shouldn't be allowed to have virology research? Should any nation? Who gets to decide? Exactly what actionable conclusion depends on knowing if the origin of the virus was a lab or not?
There are maybe one in a dozen proponents of the lab theory that are legitimately interested in these questions. For the remaining 11 out of 12, the Wuhan Lab theory is just a belief that they wear in public to signal "China bad". An alarming number of people think China created the virus and released it on purpose. I once heard someone say China released the virus just to prove that our healthcare system is bad. Let me highlight the absurdity here. This person believes China engineered a virus and then released it on their own people in a city most foreigners were unaware of so that it would eventually make it to the US. They did all this just to prove some politically left point about socialized healthcare. That's not a real belief about how the world works. That's thinly veiled "I hate liberals and China".
Most of these people are trying to reach a conclusion that the world should punish China with sanctions or (in extreme cases) war. More than a few of them are using the lab theory as a fig leaf over blatant racism. There's a huge overlap between people who believe the lab theory and people who insist on calling it the "China virus" or "Wuhan Flu". That's not a coincidence. In short, the majority of the people agreeing with your theory aren't actually on your side. When you say "How does it take so long for the truth to win?", they have a very different idea of what "the truth" means.
Don't give them legitimacy or talking points. Being honest about the lab theory in the face of people who will use your words dishonestly is a fools errand. Don't be the fool who thinks he can be nuanced enough to pull it off. Until you know you are talking with someone who cares about the lab theory for the right reasons, the correct thing to say is "it absolutely evolved naturally and did not escape a lab".
EDIT: If a kid crashes a car, you sure as hell are going to make them take more driving lessons before letting them drive again. And hearing them then say “it was a cosmic accident, why should anyone be allowed to drive” is not going to absolve them of negligence
Is this a serious question?
How about, if this is true the US government should not be funding any research like this in China.
How about, the research must be done at BSL-4 instead of 2/3 as noted in the paper.
How about, we need to massively step up our surveillance efforts on the current state of respiratory viruses going forward. Something like the Seattle Flu Study at national scale. This last point is true regardless of the origin story for SARS-CoV-2.
> "Don't give them legitimacy or talking points. Being honest about the lab theory in the face of people who will use your words dishonestly is a fools errand. Don't be the fool who thinks he can be nuanced enough to pull it off. Until you know you are talking with someone who cares about the lab theory for the right reasons, the correct thing to say is "it absolutely evolved naturally and did not escape a lab"."
This kind of second order thinking and attempted manipulation is a big reason the mainstream press has lost all of its trust.
The same nonsense was why people tried to justify saying "masks don't work" was okay. "Well, we need the masks for healthcare workers so just lie to the public so they don't try to buy too many".
There are a lot of problems with this.
1. First I think it's largely a lie, the people making these arguments are not masterminds working on 3 levels, they're making stupid tribal arguments of a similar depth to the people blaming China out of "China bad".
2. It fails, the attempted manipulation is obvious and comes out as wrong - this further discredits the press and weakens the trust of the public in institutions. This plays directly into the hands of the 'people who will use your words dishonestly'.
3. We should give a shit about the truth independent of tribal affiliation, second order manipulations are stupid - people that act to cover that up are not as clever as they think they are.
As the sister reply to your comment suggests, there should be consequences for negligence that leads to a global pandemic killing millions.
We should, but the reality is we don't. (the general we, not the specific you and me). There would be far more people (in the West) accepting the natural origin theory if the virus started in the EU or US. People give a shit about "the truth"^{tm} only when it suits them.
Some people in China have done some really spurious gene sequencing studies to try and prove the virus actually started anywhere-but-China. Their theory of "it must have started outside of China" is just as much motivated reasoning as "it must have been a malicious/incompetent act by China". Of course everyone involved really pretends to give a shit about the truth. Anyone who actually cares about the truth knows better than to wade into that cesspool. Being earnest in this context only results in you getting covered in shit.
>As the sister reply to your comment suggests, there should be consequences for negligence that leads to a global pandemic killing millions.
That really gets to the heart of it. Was it negligence, or was it just a thing that could have happened at any of the BSL labs with some small probability? What exactly is the mistake rate in similar labs around the world? Was it really more likely to have happened in WuHan, or is that just where the cosmic dice landed? There's this pervasive assumption in your comment and others that the virus escaping a Chinese lab must have been due to the incompetence of the Chinese government. Yet the Chinese governments response to the virus was more serious and more competently executed than almost anywhere else. They practically reopened months ago. How do you square that circle?
When someone is only looking at theories which have someone to blame, they aren't really being disinterested seekers of truth. Trying to explain the nuance of "there is some evidence it might have escaped a lab but that by itself doesn't necessarily imply anyone is at fault" isn't worth my time. Additionally explaining the difference between "I don't reject the lab theory" and "I believe the lab theory" also isn't worth my time. I already know 11 out of 12 aren't really listening / digesting the nuance. The only thing I can say that won't get lost in translation is "it evolved in bats, full stop".
Blame thinking is easy. Wouldn't it be great if we could just fix all our future problems by finding the people who do the wrong thing and punishing them until there's no more sinners left. The alternative of a fundamentally random universe where bad things happen for no reason is a bitter pill to swallow.
You literally just proved my point. The origin story isn't actually all that relevant to preventing future pandemics.
At the very least, people are concerned with the origin story far above and beyond its practical importance. It is at a point where you can safely assume that anyone preoccupied with the origin story is mostly interested in tribal shit-slinging.
>How about, if this is true the US government should not be funding any research like this in China.
Do you have a short list of countries the CDC shouldn't cooperate with? What exactly is your criteria? What change could China possibly enact that would get it off this list?
Edit: Should any nation do "independent unsupervised virology". I've heard people in this very thread say that the lab theory, if true, means we should "stop funding this research in China". I take that to mean no longer having a CDC outpost that cooperates with them. So which one is it. should we cut the CDC out of there completely, or should we not let them be independent and unsupervised? The lab origin theory can't imply both at the same time.
This is precisely why the truth matters and learning about the origins is important.
The cover up and lies out of China don’t necessarily mean it wasn’t a “cosmic dice” situation, but it doesn’t inspire confidence. The false PR about it having to have originated outside of the country makes it look even worse.
Maybe their response was more serious and competent because they had a better understanding of what they were dealing with? They also suppressed information - it wasn’t until the doctor went public that we began to learn the truth of its severity.
A lot of their measures (fever tents, mandatory isolation) play to the strengths of an authoritarian society.
Without knowing the truth it’s hard to evaluate the level of negligence. The western media should not be participating (wittingly or not) in the CCP’s disinformation.
> “Trying to explain the nuance of "there is some evidence it might have escaped a lab but that by itself doesn't necessarily imply anyone is at fault" isn't worth my time”
I’d argue this is the only thing worth your time. The truth absent political tribalism is the thing that can persuade people. Nuance is important, it helps make you more persuasive, even when the people you’re trying to persuade are mostly driven by motivated reasoning.
Anyway we could look at the "cosmic dice rate" for all the labs we do know about. But the funny thing about that is we can ask and reasonably answer the question about low-probability but ultra-high risk research without ever needing to investigate this particular outbreaks origin story. Conversely, even if tomorrow some one dug up smoking gun evidence that it evolved naturally in the wild and had nothing to do with any lab, the question about lab risks and future pandemics would still be worth asking. Could you imagine anyone saying "well I used to be in favor of reviewing our risk factors, but now that I know coronavirus was all natural I no longer give any shits about the safety risks of this research."?
If you care about future pandemics, there's a million better ways to spend your energy than trying to figure out if there was or wasn't a coverup in a (formerly) obscure lab in a (formerly) obscure city over a year ago in a country that isn't known for transparency. Anyone who actively contributes to the "debate" is being counterproductive. In my view, the main practical use of the lab origin theory is as an inadvertent shibboleth to identify who's hooked on tribalism / motivated reasoning / spurious logic.
>The truth absent political tribalism is the thing that can persuade people.
This sounds like the sort of thing I would have said before "post-factual" entered our lexicon. Behind every cynic is a disappointed idealist.
A certified truck driver crashes their truck because they didn't follow the strict safety procedures that the trucking regulatory body set to prevent said crash. They were hauling Anhydrous Ammonia. The resulting blast kills 4 million people globally.
Are you going to make them take more safety lessons before letting them haul again?
Or will hearing them then say “it was a cosmic accident, why should anyone be allowed to haul” absolve them of negligence?
Maybe to further your point, should everyone stop hauling Anhydrous Ammonia, or should just the person who let the accident happen?