[jquery]

As someone who believed the lab leak theory from the start, I don't ever remember it being treated as a "crazy non scientific conspiracy".

I do remember some people pushing the leak theory as if it was 100% proven and them getting called out.

I also don't have any hard evidence for the lab leak theory so I'm open to being wrong. I'm just suspicious because China hasn't been forthcoming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory

[tripletao]

Here's The Lancet in Feb 2020:

> We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Nothing in that condemnation is limited to claims of deliberate release. That article contributed to a false scientific consensus, which social media operators used to justify banning any account that suggested SARS-CoV-2 might have arisen from a research-related accident. For example, Facebook did so until May 2021.

[ricksunny]

> I don't ever remember it being treated as a "crazy non scientific conspiracy

Consider that this treatment may have taken place in the editorial boards & newsrooms of the outlets you read before the debate ever had the opportunity to reach to your attention.

Perhaps epistemology is not just individual in scope, but societal.

Indeed, I also didn't remember it being treated in Jan-Oct 2020 as a 'crazy non-scientific conspiracy'. But we know today, (reference any journalist talking about origins on Twitter) that lab leak was being treated amongst themselves as a wild-eyed conspiracy theory

[growingentropy]

I only remember the lab leak theory being discussed seriously once Biden had been elected. Prior to that, it was treated as unenlightened racism.

Not that I'm a Trump fan. But the man was a lightning rod like I've never seen for the left here in America.

Then again, just flippantly referring to Covid as the "Kung Flu" just might have something to do with it.

[jkhdigital]

I also felt it was the most likely explanation from the first time I read about it (March/April 2020) but even if it was “just one hypothesis” here’s the thing: if true, it has profound implications for the future of humanity. It’s not like this is just an academic question about what killed the dinosaurs. It doesn’t matter whether it can be proven; the fact that we consider it in the realm of possibility means we need to figure out what can be done to ensure the next “hypothetical” leak isn’t even worse.

[licebmi__at__]

Does it really matter? I mean we did had deadly pandemics before biolabs were a thing. Other than blaming China because that’s what Americans want to do now, I haven’t heard anything interesting about what to do if the lab leak hypotheses is right.

[tripletao]

Thoreau made a similar argument after his carelessness started a major wildfire, stating that once he lost control of his campfire, it was "as if the lightning had done it". His neighbors weren't impressed, and I'm not impressed here either.

This thinking is just bizarre. ~20M people are dead. If SARS-CoV-2 arose from a research accident at the WIV, then those deaths were all avoidable, simply by not funding research that was already considered to be an unacceptable risk by many academics (Relman, Lipsitch, etc.) before the pandemic, and actually defunded until 2017. These were real people, mothers and grandfathers and friends. Would you not rather they hadn't died?

The WIV was funded by the American NIH, and used techniques first developed by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina. If SARS-CoV-2 arose from a research accident there, then the American government is in no position to blame China. On the other hand, that gives the American and Chinese governments a collective incentive to downplay that possibility, as seems to have occurred.

[dent9876543]

It doesn’t matter in the sense that we just had to deal with the virus, no matter what.

But it does matter with regard to public trust in science and government.

Others have also pointed out that it matters because of it being a potential spark for racism (and that’s a reasonable concern no matter if you think the response wrong or right).

Also, I remember some concern that it may be a bio-weapon. And, although slight far fetched, it would be consistent. Ironically, I suspect the intent was to discount the possibility to prevent panic. (Though they were happy to spread lower grade fear, so go figure…)