If this has a zoonotic origin then we don't really have the evidence that our current methods are as terribly insufficient. We do have a record of occasional lab leaks, but nothing disastrous as a result.
If it wasn't a lab leak then we should be asking questions along the lines of how to reduce future zoonotic transfer. Should we be pressuring China and others to curtail "wet markets"?
Either way, it's interesting as a scientific question. To look at the origins of one of the most impactful global events of the last year and just shrug strikes me as strangely incurious.
Of course, in reality I don't expect the US government will do anything productive and even if we knew the origins of the virus conclusively I doubt they'd do anything.
And then the next time the source is India. There's plenty of examples worldwide of biological research being handled poorly, if China was responsible for the worst result it doesn't mean they were less responsible.
>Should we be pressuring China and others to curtail "wet markets"?
Should we stop eating pigs? As swine flu had the potential to be comparatively catastrophic.
Your entire post is filled with "blame China" when everything involved is an international issue. This is exactly why I don't care about where it came from, too many people will push for that information to be used to "punish those responsible" rather than actually try to limit future outbreaks.
Obviously, if we have evidence that we need better safety protocols in labs then we should expect India, as well as every other country on Earth, to follow them. What coronavirus may mean though is that China is demonstrably dangerously lacking and cannot be trusted to implement sufficient safety protocols. We have no such evidence about India or other countries.
Why shouldn't hold accountable the people responsible for killing millions with dangerous research and substandard safety protocols? (Assuming the truth of the lab leak hypothesis)
From another post, the US had 1100 reported incidents in a four year period involving biologically risky agents. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/17/report... I don't assume the US is particularly bad about this, so I expect other countries have similar rates, I only picked India to escape claims of "whataboutism."
Dangerous research with a sketchy safety record happens worldwide. That the worst outcome potentially came from a Chinese incident does not mean they're the only ones at fault, and punishing them does little to prevent future outbreaks.
I don't believe that.
Even if there’s only a 5 or 10% chance that this led to the covid-19 pandemic, it calls for action to update safety standards globally.
More useful research would just be additional studies testing various breach scenarios.
Answer: use this information to guide policy changes. This is how incident response works. You don’t just ignore what happened and spray a bunch of bruteforce measures that miss the point; you root cause it.
D.R.A.S.T.I.C. and others working towards this effort are definitely interested in it because of its value for guiding prevention.
Example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/30/scientist...
I see it as more likely they use this information to punish the responsible source and ignore all other potential sources.
> we should try to limit the possibility of either happening in the future.
And scientists and researchers claim that to do this, we need to determine the root cause of the initial spread:
> [Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and molecular virology and microbiology at Baylor College of Medicine and a leading expert on the virus,] said coming to firm conclusions about how the virus emerged was “absolutely essential” in preventing future pandemics.
But we shouldn't do that, because China might suffer political consequences if it turns out that negligence or irresponsible behavior lead to the outbreak.
In other words: We should try to limit the possibility of this happening in the future. But, the search for the source of the pandemic, that scientists and researchers suggest are needed to prevent future pandemics, and indeed would follow standard incident response protocol in virtually any situation, is "political." But, the notion that we shouldn't do that because it might harm China from a political standpoint is not political.
On the other hand, it sounds a lot like doing the wrong thing in order to avoid causing an unwanted political outcome, such as creating justification for actions that a political adversary might want taken. It comes off a bit like this tweet:
> David Hogg @davidhogg111
> I feel the need to continue wearing my mask outside even though I’m fully vaccinated because the inconvenience of having to wear a mask is more than worth it to have people not think I’m a conservative
This is absolutely benign since wearing a mask is actually not a bad idea and stops the spread of flus and common colds. However, consider the reverse of not wearing a mask despite not being fully vaccinated, because you don't want to appear liberal. This is not making a decision because it is the right or logical thing to do. This is making a decision out of fear that it might come to a conclusion, or have optics that don't support your political causes.
This is, of course, hot garbage, and if we wind up with another serious viral outbreak, I'm sure we can all be glad that at least China didn't face unfair political retribution while huge portions of the population are dying.