zlacker

> “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?”

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.

>>goneho+(OP)
Is it still "PR" when the person writing it has genuinely drank the cool-aid? My point wasn't about China releasing a bullshit study as propaganda. My point was the lab hypothesis reeks of similar "motivated science" but we can't see it in our own cultural context as easily as we can see it in others.

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.