|
|
|
|
|
|
by sterlind
1617 days ago
|
|
|
> You should read my reply - from that article, the infected scientist was at the time not wearing his PPE. The infection was due to his incompetence, and wouldn't have happened if he was actually following BSL4 regulations. It seems his colleagues saw this and thought it was fine. that's.. worse though, right? that's an incident in a BSL-4 where an incautious scientist disregarded regulations, without his colleagues calling him on it, and leading to the release of SARS. that's the reality - regulations are always broken, colleagues are always complacent. why would WIV or any other BSL-4 be any better? |
|
|
Why would they be just as bad?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7088173/
> In this study, an international survey based on volunteering was conducted in biosafety level 3 and 4 laboratories to determine the number of laboratory-acquired infections and the possible underlying causes of these contaminations.
> The analysis of the survey reveals that laboratory-acquired infections have been infrequent and even rare in recent years, and human errors represent a very high percentage of the cases.
> Today, most risks from biological hazards can be reduced through the use of appropriate procedures and techniques, containment devices and facilities, and the training of personnel.