How specifically does the value of either of those things, which are intended to mitigate the next pandemic, depend on knowing the origin of the previous pandemic?
This is like saying it's important to know whether the last dice roll was a 2 before you decide whether to bet on a 4 or 6 coming up next.
Well - I'm not qualified to make specific policy but say for example covid was a result of gain of function experiments being done in Wuhan at BSL-2, you would likely ban that.
Indeed but we wouldn't even be talking about that if it were not for the investigations done so far revealing that as a likely cause. And only discovered under court rulings requiring people to divulge information they were otherwise refusing to let out.
It's a bit like looking at the 737-MAX crashes and saying the investigation was pointless. Planes should be designed not to crash regardless, don't you agree?
> It's a bit like looking at the 737-MAX crashes and saying the investigation was pointless. Planes should be designed not to crash regardless, don't you agree?
Do we live in a world of airplanes of all makes and models probabilistically falling out of the sky as a guaranteed characteristic of airplanes?
If so, yes, focusing on debugging a 737-MAX crash that happened to be completely full and hit an occupied building on the ground (therefore extra horrific/attention-grabbing) would be pointless.
Doubly so if the evidence required to root cause it was evaporated upon impact.
Triply so if people decided they had to know what caused that specific crash before they could address the probabilistic falling of airplanes out of the sky.
> Do we live in a world of airplanes of all makes and models probabilistically falling out of the sky
This statement and others you've made about dice and probability suggest that you think actions of humans bear no weight on probability of infection or outbreak. History teaches us otherwise.
No, I believe that the specific cause of a previous outbreak does not significantly change the probability distribution of future outbreaks, and therefore informs very little about the appropriate mitigations against future events.
> I believe that the specific cause of a previous outbreak does not significantly change the probability distribution of future outbreaks
If humans didn't learn and adapt, that may be true. And in that scenario we would all be suffering from cholera, still drinking from the community well John Snow identified in 1854.
Note that he didn't need to identify which specific bacteria was causing the infections. He needed to know which well to remediate and that chlorine would remediate it.
If he decided not to chlorinate the well in order to fully decide which specific bacteria was causing cholera, that would have been stupid.
The additional information would not have been worth the cost of acquiring it.
It would not have changed anything about the correct remediations and it would have incurred significant cost to acquire that information.
> If he decided not to chlorinate the well in order to fully decide which specific bacteria was causing cholera, that would have been stupid.
Thankfully that is not the choice anyone is confronted with. John Snow identified and treated the well and also proposed the first substantially complete and correct model for the cause of the disease. Both efforts informed each other and contributed to the solution which may not have been possible otherwise.
Proponents of the miasma theory surely thought he was wasting his time.
Fillipo Pacini isolated the bacterium the very same year. How wonderful it is that we can all collaborate to solve many aspects of the same problem.
Instead of continuing to muddy the conversation why don’t you just settle it by providing a clear answer to this question?:
What should we do differently depending on the outcome?
The miasma alternative for cholera is another excellent illustration of my point, not yours. The answer to whether miasma theory or contaminated wells was correct very obviously had bearing on how you’d mitigate the problem, and this characteristic was totally evident even before answering the question.
If someone could specifically state what we should do differently depending on the answer, I’m amenable to it. But you haven’t done that because the answer is: nothing!
And past experiences inform future actions. It's called learning, and some of us feel it's worthwhile for no other reason than the knowledge.
Put another way, one might ask your same question about polio or smallpox or any other outbreak of any other disease. Everything we learn about every one of them prepares us in some way for the next.
If the knowledge were cost-free, I would love to have it!
But in reality, it isn't. It creates precisely the faulty logic that we're seeing in this thread, where people believe certain mitigations are justified only after certain conclusions are reached about the origin of COVID.
This just isn't true and we do ourselves a disservice to frame the conversation such that people believe that to be the case.
If we discover that COVID came from a lab and therefore decide to eliminate GoF research but not increase surveillance efforts (since eliminating GoF research addresses "the threat"), that is bad.
If we discover that COVID came from a zoonotic origin and therefore decide to continue doing dangerous GoF research in metropolises, that is bad.
If we fail to determine either of these things with sufficient certainty to take action against either threat vector, which is the most probable case, that is really bad.
If we instead acknowledge that it hardly matters where COVID came from because it indicates nearly nothing about where the next pandemic will come from, and therefore we need to mitigate both vectors, that is good.
> decide to continue doing dangerous GoF research in metropolises, that is bad.
How do you know GoF research is bad? By analysing the consequences of previous GoF research.
If lab origin is confirmed, it adds support to GoF research being bad hypothesis helps creating relevant regulations. If zoonotic origin is confirmed, it adds another data point of naturally created dangerous pathogens and weakens the argument of banning GoF research.
There are no _a priori_ truths, only approximations at a time based on past statistics.
> If zoonotic origin is confirmed, it adds another data point of naturally created dangerous pathogens and weakens the argument of banning GoF research.
Why would a zoonotic origin of COVID reduce the risk of GoF?
Zoonotic origin reduces the risk of GoF research because understanding the underlying biology becomes more useful to address novel variants popping up in the wild (apart from other potential uses).
A poor analogy is suppose in 1800s humans encountered nuclear explosion near nuclear research lab. It could have human or natural origin. If natural then it is important for us to accelerate nuclear research with relatively lax regulations and develop countermeasures. If human origin, lack of sufficient regulation is a more probable cause.
> understanding the underlying biology becomes more useful to address novel variants popping up in the wild (apart from other potential uses).
This is effectively not true in light of the mRNA platform, which negates the rest of your argument as well, because the existence of the mRNA platform is not contingent upon the origin.
Dangerous GoF was made excessively dangerous by the invention of the mRNA platform regardless of whether COVID itself even happened, never mind the specific origin of it.
Doing GoF research in major metropolitan areas is very obviously unacceptable and should have been considered such prior to COVID, and should be widely considered such after COVID. Again regardless of whether COVID itself came from WIV.
We already know everything we need to know about zoonotic possibilities which is that nature can produce pathogens orders of magnitude worse than COVID on any dimension.
If after learning that COVID was zoonotic, your conclusion is "guess it's okay to keep WIV and WIV-like labs in major cities doing the type of research they were doing," then you are simply insane.
Any new technology has its dangers and its uses. The whole EA vs e/acc is a more recent example. A utilitarian will try to probabilistically measure expected benefit of the technology based on existing data points.
> Doing GoF research in major metropolitan areas is very obviously unacceptable.
It is not so obvious to the people wanting to accelerate the research and solve cancer, aging or whatever their pet problem at (in their opinion) slim risk of catastrophe.
> nature can produce pathogens orders of magnitude worse than COVID on any dimension
Everything is possible, including nature producing mass extinction pathogens. The key missing information is the probability. Else we all will be living in bunkers.
> If after learning that COVID was zoonotic, your conclusion is "guess it's okay to keep WIV and WIV-like labs in major cities doing the type of research they were doing," then you are simply insane.
Agree, a single data point does not warrant extreme change in status quo. But it does weaken the argument to a non-zero extent that GoF research leads to global pandemic. This has trickle down effects of eschewing additional regulations which would have been added otherwise.
> It is not so obvious to the people wanting to accelerate the research and solve cancer, aging or whatever their pet problem at (in their opinion) slim risk of catastrophe.
What GoF research either a) increases contagiousness of a pathogen or b) increases pathogenicity of a contagion and has anything to do with "cancer, aging, or whatever their pet problem" is?
> The key missing information is the probability.
COVID did - not - change the probability.
> But it does weaken the argument to a non-zero extent that GoF research leads to global pandemic.
No! It literally doesn't! The probability of GoF research leading to a future pandemic was the same the day before the COVID outbreak as it was the day after which is the same as it is today.
The only thing that will shift those probabilities are mitigations that we put in place.
We know so little about biology that any kind of research can lead transformative benefits. Therefore the outcomes of a certain line of biological research including GoF are unknown. Penicillin is a great example of this.
> COVID did - not - change the probability.
True from the perspective of omniscient universe, but for humans with limited knowledge, it will change our priors based on the origin.
There is a valid reasoning for how GoF research can lead to pandemic but we do not know how often it will happen in practice. There are many things we already do with potential global consequences. Historical example is the risk of chain reaction during first atomic test. Contemporary example is the universal dependance on digital infrastructure which can be hacked. Timeless example is asteroid hitting the earth.
We make decisions for each of the scenarios based on perceived (objective + subjective) probabilities and the tradeoffs.
If natural origin is proved, there is less reason to add mitigations to the GoF research because mitigations are hard to design and limit the exploration space.
> It creates precisely the faulty logic that we're seeing in this thread, where people believe certain mitigations are justified only after certain conclusions are reached about the origin of COVID.
I'm not following. It seems as though you've run wildly to some conclusion not present in the conversation. Perhaps there's some outside context I'm missing.
> If we instead acknowledge that it hardly matters where COVID came from because it indicates nearly nothing about where the next pandemic will come from
It seems you would do away with the entire field of epidemiology. I find that the discipline has been quite useful to humanity. I'd like to keep it.
This is like saying it's important to know whether the last dice roll was a 2 before you decide whether to bet on a 4 or 6 coming up next.