[UberFly]

You are correct. I guess people can't handle that. This is from the article, it tracks with your sentiment:

Said Metzl, “Had US government officials including Dr. Fauci stated from day one that a COVID-19 research-related origin was a very real possibility, and made clear that we had little idea what viruses were being held at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, what work was being done there, and who was doing that work, our national and global conversations would have been dramatically different. The time has come for a full accounting.”

[predictabl3]

Are we actually claiming that "Virus leak from scary china" would've gotten people to wear masks more or isolate more, versus "Virus killing people keeps spreading?" Or am I missing the point?

[defen]

I think it would have. A huge portion of early deniers (generally people of a conservative disposition) were in the "it's just a flu" camp. I think "scary virus from China" would have made those people stop and think "there's no telling WHAT this thing could do!"

[evandale]

I think you're understanding the point. Consider what you would call an average Trump supporter. Consider what they would think if Trump declared "This China flu isn't a normal flu. The Chinese designed it in a lab and now it's out in the world. I urge every American to wear masks and get vaccinated to stop this Chinese flu."

How do you think the average Trump supporter would respond to that? Now consider what would have happened if he went all out and said the Chinese released it on purpose? It's scary to think that if he pushed the bioweapon angle it's likely that Republicans would have been lining up for vaccines and the other side taking the advice of Jenny McCarthy and refusing it.

There is so much wrong with how the pandemic was handled and the #1 things were making it a political issue, using xenophobia as a reason to not implement effective policies, and not treating it like the medical emergency that it was.

[UberFly]

If it was available, wouldn't having the actual truth been preferable? I don't get how obfuscation over facts helps anyone.

[mort96]

That doesn't track with their sentiment at all? "Our national and global conversation would have been dramatically different" is not the same as "many fewer people would have died".

[CrimsonCape]

Any response to your question is hypothetical at this point (disclaimer) so here's my hypothetical explanation of how conversation would have led to less deaths:

A lot of people believed the lab leak "consipracy theory", but Fauci and company were so adamant to contradict the "conspiracy theorists" that it practically destroyed those people's willingness to heed any of the CDC directives.

Of course I can only say anecdotally violating CDC guidelines results in more deaths, but that's the gist of my hypothetical.

See this article:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbrewster/2021/06/16/heres-w...

[ribosometronome]

Certainly, a weird coincidence that many of the people worried about it being a lab leak early on, also had downplayed it and practice little caution to avoid getting it.

[ribosometronome]

Dr. Fauci was quite clear about it being dangerous, no? Of all the government officials to name for downplaying COVID, that's an interesting one.