zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. fighte+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-09-19 10:16:38
Your argument is that we should take very stringent preventative measures whether or not COVID leaked from a lab.

While I agree with that, what this misses is that knowledge of if and how the virus escaped is valuable knowledge that helps us by showing us where the flaws in our current processes are.

Flight safety is a fitting analogy. You need to analyze exactly why a plane crashed so that you can see the gaps in current safety processes. It is that iteration (crash -> analyze -> improve -> crash -> analyze -> improve) over many generations that is why flying is so safe. Without this, it's armchair theory and you are not left with a system that is robust to the real world.

replies(1): >>sneak+a5
2. sneak+a5[view] [source] 2021-09-19 11:21:38
>>fighte+(OP)
How is it valuable?

If it could be made in a lab and released (intentionally or accidentally), another could be made in a lab and released (intentionally), and our strategy should be exactly the same even if SARS-CoV-2 is of entirely natural origin, as the entire planet now knows the destructive value of this class of bioweapons (if constructing such artificially is within our technology).

The US ban on GOF research suggests that it is believed to be technically feasible to achieve this. This means we must proceed strategically as a species as if the lab leak hypothesis were true, because over time the probability of an intentional lab leak approaches 1. The origin of this particular pandemic remains irrelevant in that case.

replies(1): >>fighte+66
◧◩
3. fighte+66[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-19 11:33:59
>>sneak+a5
> How is it valuable?

> our strategy should be exactly the same even if SARS-CoV-2 is of entirely natural origin

This is still missing the point. The point is that studying the details of how it leaked (if it did leak) gives you information that you can use to refine safety processes. Without these details, you are left with mere armchair theorizing about what new procedures are necessary and what the flaws are in current procedures.

Read about the history of plane crashes, where the details of how planes crashed were used to improve flight safety.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/g73/12-airplane-cras...

- United Airlines 232 "The NTSB later determined the accident was caused by a failure by mechanics to detect a crack in the fan disk ... The accident led the FAA to order modification of the DC-10's hydraulic system and to require redundant safety systems in all future aircraft."

- TWA 800 "It was everybody's nightmare: a plane that blew up in midair for no apparent reason ... most likely after a short circuit in a wire bundle ... The FAA has since mandated changes to reduce sparks from faulty wiring and other sources."

Now how could such improvements have been made without knowing how the plane crashed?

replies(1): >>sneak+i7
◧◩◪
4. sneak+i7[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-19 11:48:13
>>fighte+66
I think we're talking at cross purposes. (In any case, thanks for explaining!) I'm talking about defensive measures that a species needs to take to protect itself against dangerous respiratory viruses. You're talking about security measures that a laboratory needs to take to protect the world from the escape of things from containment.

While finding out the answer to the latter is interesting, I think "a ban on GOF research" is likely closer to the answer to the former, which reduces the significance of the latter.

We're going to see more of these, whether from SARS-CoV mutations, bioterror, or future lab leaks. The large-scale changes our society needs to make are identical even if we were only facing a subset of these threats (ie if lab leaks could be completely eliminated, which is what I believe you're talking about).

[go to top]