The actual origin is critical to understand, because it will happen again. We should be ready and able to watch out for where it might come from.

Can you agree that, if it was generated by human activity that we can control, it'd be critical to know this and spread information about it widely?

Absolutely. Perhaps it was grown in a lab, perhaps it was released, or perhaps it escaped. All happened before, all will happen again.

Given that I don't think we -can- control human behavior, there are good labs, there are bad labs, etc, I think the ability to -respond- I paramount. While the origin is interesting in an historical way, lessons from the response will be more useful going forwards.

We need to respond in a way that is independent of origin. That will ultimately lead to better outcomes, and incidentally reduce the risk of bio-terrorism.

[Aside - if it was lab grown I don't think it was released on purpose (it wouldn't have been released locally). Which means some sort of failure in the safety protocols, which likely means human error. General discussion on that topic I useless except for a tiny sliver of people doing that work. I'm not sure discussing it on social media really achieves anything. ]

Well if it did come from a lab, there is the obvious question of whether the type of research that lab was doing had benefits commensurate with the risks, and also whether the middle of a dense city is the best place to conduct that kind of research.

Perhaps it matters so that we can hold those responsible to account to reduce the chances of it happening again? Wouldn't you want to know if a rogue group had a gain-of-function project rejected by DARPA and then secretly moved it to China to avoid oversight and then that project caused a pandemic?

And perhaps the people that did that shouldn't be in charge of how to handle the pandemic and shouldn't be in charge of determining how the pandemic started?

The origin story matters because we had the authoritarian bureaucrats who helped create the virus AND LIED ABOUT IT running the virus response in this country and they took all of their new powers and produced one of the highest per capita death rates from the virus in a so-called advanced country.

It looks a lot worse than suspicious.

You don't say which country is "this country" - but from the context I'm assuming China? And sure if it was created in a lab then that opens the door to lots of political questions.

But the source of the virus remains less important to the folk that died from it. They're no less dead because it escaped from a lab than if it came from a wet market.

Responses in every country were different. Which ones were the right ones are valuable lessons moving forward, and anthropologists will be studying that data for decades.

I think OP meant the US. Anthony Fauci was one of the main individuals in the government responsible for sponsoring gain of function research, including funding some of it at the Wuhan institute. It was incredibly odd that a virologist with no public health background (and a very questionable role in past HIV policy) effectively commandeered the CDC's job here, but it makes sense if you think about it as a " cover my ass" move from him.

I should have checked in on this thread yesterday, but yes, I meant the US.

The origin 100% does matter. It demonstrates that some kinds of virus research pose an existential threat to humanity if not handled properly. That seems relevant, especially when simultaneously Covid demonstrated that such research is also really important to do. Like the origin actually does pose some serious, non-trivial ethical questions about disease research that the public absolutely has a right and obligation to participate in.

>> some kinds of virus research pose an existential threat to humanity if not handled properly.

I mean, I'm not trying to be a dick, but ... duh. This has been the primary plot point of a zillion movies for forever.

Oh, and accidents at labs happen more often than you'd like[1]. And the frequency seems to be going up, not down. >> the public absolutely has a right and obligation to participate in.

I'm sure the "public" (by which I assume you mean random people on social media) are not qualified in the slightest to participate in this discussion. If you feel that you have an "obligation" to weigh in, then by all means feel free. No-one is stopping you. It's completely possible to have discussions on lab safety without having to point fingers at a specific incident.

As you point out there's a really strong tension at play here - it's very important to be able to do virus research. Working with viruses is dangerous. It can be made as safe as possible, but it's still dangerous. There is a very fine line here, which is best walked by people highly qualified and working in this space. Given they are the most likely first victims of any accident, I'm sure they are highly motivated to be safe.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...

Matters to me. If it was made in a lab I want to know how it will prevented next time and if it can’t be prevented I want that type of research stopped.