1) So we can learn and mitigate the risks of something similar happening again.
and
2) In the event that the virus was leaked from a laboratory, the world would like to send the lab a small invoice for costs incurred and damages.
It's window dressing, and I'm becoming even more suspicious that the disease origin is just another managed narrative, as everybody who believes it came from a lab believed it last year, and nobody who rejected the lab leak view last year is going to have their mind changed to where they accept institutions they believe in are culpable.
It's an issue designed to politically neutralize people, so that we will be just like people arguing about jet fuel burning temperatures on the internet instead of confronting our governments about surveillance and state overreach and the patriot act. The whole so-called "debate" is a honeypot tarpit for useful idiots.
That, to me, is the interesting part of the lab breakout case. Are we regularly underestimating the risk of novel viruses in research laboratories?