[layer8]

Why do we have to speculate? If both hypotheses are plausible, should it make a significant difference for the measures we take which one is actually true? If evidence comes out showing which hypothesis is true, does it suddenly make the other one retroactively less plausible? I mean, it would be interesting to know what really happened, but it doesn’t change all that much.

[ajsnigrutin]

It does. Knowing what caused this should be important, so it doesn't happen again.

If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do. If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken, or such things should not be done in labs with iffy security practices... or maybe even not done at all.

Many workplace (and general) safety rules were written because someone has died doing something (now considered) against the rules. Killing a few millions of people and stoping the planets economy for almost two years seems like a terrible cost of some research gone bad.

[AshamedCaptain]

> Knowing what caused this should be important, so it doesn't happen again

I really don't see that. If it is really true that both options are indistinguishably plausible, then what do you in response to this one event is absolutely meaningless. The next event could as likely come from "the other source", or from a new entirely one you don't even know about.

Your only reasonable option _in any case_ is to just strengthen your protection from both potential sources.

Suppose you are investigating a plane crash, and the evidence points to a possible uncontained engine failure, which apparently was caused by previously-undetected metal fatigue. The evidence, however, also almost entirely fits a bird strike. It doesn't really matter if you eventually find it was a bird strike, or not. Your engineers really think the metal fatigue could have brought down the plane? You are going to increase metal fatigue inspections, birds or not. And viceversa.

[kcplate]

> both options are indistinguishably plausible, then what do you in response to this one event is absolutely meaningless.

How is it “absolutely meaningless” if you can narrow the chance of happening of the one you have control over? Is a global pandemic is a rare occurrence already don’t you make it more rare if you mitigate the risk of one of the possible sources?

[AshamedCaptain]

What is absolutely meaningless is _which_ was the cause of this one particular event, since both clauses are almost equally plausible. I am obviously not claiming that the best course of action is not to mitigate anything; I am claiming that the best course of action is the same irregardless of the particular cause of this one event.

[kcplate]

No doubt, but if the catalyst for the folks involved to take that best course of action is a global public revelation that governments and scientists had a hand in this either by irresponsible experimentation or lax safety over dangerous experimentation then it’s not meaningless.

[namose]

Gain of function research can either be outlawed or not outlawed. We don’t get to try both because viruses are global issues.

[mellavora]

> If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do.

Some people say the main progress of civilization is the ability to do things about forces which were previously seen as natural and random.

> If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken,

Do you mean like making sure the labs follow certain biohazard handling standards and procedures? Which they currently have to do to maintain their certifications/ratings?

We don't have to prove that covid was a lab leak to review the procedures. Likewise, we don't have to prove that covid was natural and random (I am glad you separated those two, by the way) before reviewing how we handle food safety and animal transportation measures.

[Closi]

Nontheless, noting and acknowledging that a worldwide pandemic was actually caused from a lab leak would certinaly drive stricter regulation and higher adherence to procedures.

Conversely, a strong belief that it wasn't a lab leak would, of course, reduce the pressure to implement changes to safety protocols.

In theory everyone would react in a way which optimally reduces risk, but in practice acknowledgement of an incident drives significantly different behaviour.

[layer8]

Right, but I believe that this bias created by knowing the actual outcome for a single instance is much too strong, and we should rather strive to reduce that bias. In that light, the effort expended in continued speculation about the actual truth seems mostly wasted and misdirected energy to me.

[Izkata]

> Do you mean like making sure the labs follow certain biohazard handling standards and procedures? Which they currently have to do to maintain their certifications/ratings?

Part of the lab leak claim is that the 2018 experiments mentioned in the tweet were done in a BSL2 lab even though they required BSL3 or 4.