I don’t go looking for covid discussions but they arrive in my feeds so i’m conscious i’m seeing a feed that someone(s) else curated for me and wanted me to view. That said…
Is there any popular discussion or action regarding mitigation of both lab and natural origins for future?
It seems that both avenues are possible. If we know both are possible, that seems like enough knowledge to move forward with exploring possible mitigations for future.
I realise there may be hard reasons why no mitigation is possible, but i just never encounter popular discussion of what to do next.
There’s a natural fork in the road here which is why this is so contentious. The best argument gain of function proponents have for their research (besides weaponization of course) is to create the next big thing in a lab first so that we can figure out how to neutralize it. The argument the anti-GoF advocates have is that creating the next big thing in a lab leads eventually/inevitably to at least one of them getting out.
The responses are effectively inherently opposite hence strong disagreement.
> The best argument gain of function proponents have for their research (besides weaponization of course) is to create the next big thing in a lab first so that we can figure out how to neutralize it
Did that actually help in this case? Or are gain-of-function advocates the science equivalent of employees who want to rewrite your webapp in the language du jour? They say it's for the benefit of the company (humanity) but really what they want is to play with cool toys and get promotions.
I don't understand how this argument has any traction at all. My understanding is we had the COVID vaccines formulated within weeks of the initial outbreak. The problem is, it then took many months of large scale testing, and then scaling production to make the vaccine readily available. In the meantime, the virus spread across the globe and mutated into forms that the vaccine isn't very effective against. Treatments seem to be in a similar position as well. How are you going to test a treatment for a virus that only exists in a lab, and is safely contained?
Months, and it didnt happen at WIV who was doing gof research thus should be the first one with best results according to the above theory. Quite opposite happened, China with all the power of WIV behind it was last with the vaccine whose efficiency is highly debated but visibly shaky.
The fundamental difference with nuclear theory is that nukes don't self-assemble more nukes.
The exponential replication of biological pandemics means there are very different optima.
Whether that's in favor of GoF or anti-GoF, I can't say. It's a tradeoff between {increased risk of pandemic & more prepared for pandemic} vs {decreased risk of pandemic & less prepared for pandemic}.
A sane response probably means we should build two neutral, BSL-4 (+) labs and require by UN treaty that all GoF research take place there, outlawed in the rest of the world, with verification inspection of labs.
Of course, you'd be prying power out of the hands of the US/Russia/China, so there'd have to be a pretty big bone to get them to bite.
Which would probably look like complete autonomy and confidentiality within the lab, in their respective areas. With strict perimeter and time-quarantine -based controls.
> The fundamental difference with nuclear theory is that nukes don't self-assemble more nukes.
It's worse than that: nukes don't learn to become even more powerful nukes while being used.
> BSL-4 (+) labs
One of the issues is that effective safety in labs is virtually impossible in reality (lab leaks that are effectively non-material events are relatively high frequency even from the best labs).
That’s the fundamental difference from the anti-GOF side. The fundamental difference from the pro-GOF side is that understanding exactly how a nuke works gets you no closer to being able to protect a population from nukes because there is no such thing as a nuke vaccine.
Your suggestion seems like a likely workable compromise if one of those labs is primarily in the US/Euro sphere and the other is primarily in the Russia/China sphere, with enforced transparency.
Is there any concrete evidence that gain-of-function research actually increases preparedness for pandemics? It seems like the benefits are all still very hypothetical? Considering it would need to prevent a massive pandemic just to break even at this point, perhaps it's time to throw in the towel.
The first obvious corrective action would be to prohibit gain of function research in level-2 labs.
The second would be to prohibit gain of function research in general, especially with funds emerging from a country that has implemented such restrictions as the United States did.
"A ban publicly endorsed by Xi Jinping was instituted on the consumption of almost all wild animals. … There are risks, however, that the economic pressures these actions place on wildlife farmers and traders will drive the lucrative business farther underground, or induce local officials, eager to spur economic recovery or susceptible to bribery, to tolerate it, as occurred in the wake of SARS. … Outside experts, however, question how well the bans are being enforced, and believe they do not go far enough, as demand is still fuelling a transboundary wildlife supply chain in neighbouring countries."
Is there any popular discussion or action regarding mitigation of both lab and natural origins for future?
It seems that both avenues are possible. If we know both are possible, that seems like enough knowledge to move forward with exploring possible mitigations for future.
I realise there may be hard reasons why no mitigation is possible, but i just never encounter popular discussion of what to do next.