Research and Risks

Continuing in our discussion of the relative risks of a zoonotic origin for SARS-CoV-2 vs. the lab-leak hypothesis, you might find this find these observations from bat researcher Bret Weinstein at UnHerd enlightening:

Having lost the battle to push a natural Covid-19 origin story into the public consciousness, and now thoroughly embarrassed by a grassroots effort to surface the truth, the press, the scientific establishment, governmental regulators, and the titanic social media platforms of Silicon Valley are now desperately seeking a new narrative that will restore business as usual. Damage control is in full swing.

For now, though, allow me to be the bearer of good news, hidden among all of this scrambling and obfuscation. As the public has become ever more aware of in the last few weeks, the concept of a lab leak is, based on the actual evidence, the most compelling hypothesis to explain the origin of SARS-CoV2.

That presentation will, of course, seem counterintuitive. How could anyone think that lab origin is a good thing? Well, consider each of the two proposed scenarios:

If SARS2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — came from nature then, logically, it’s only a matter of time before something like this happens again. And again. And again. And next time, it could all too easily be worse. Our best recourse, then, is clearly to study potential zoonotic pathogens in the lab. It could even be argued, as it has been by many researchers, that we should enhance these infectious agents to discover their vulnerabilities so that next time, we’ll know just what to do.

How else could we discover what we’re up against? After all, if SARS2 came from nature, then the biologists who were furiously studying its close relatives were, if anything, too slow and too cautious to protect us. The straightforward lesson of the pandemic would be to simply face up to the clear risk of studying dangerous, novel infectious agents in the lab. Indeed, we would be forced to redouble our efforts before SARS3 catches us off-guard.

If, on the other hand, SARS2 emerged from a lab, then the lesson is the opposite. Covid-19 would be, at the bare minimum, the direct result of our failure to heed prior warnings about the possibility of such an accident. Lab leaks are not uncommon, so making already dangerous viruses even more dangerous is a recipe for disaster. If, therefore, we want to avoid a pandemic from happening again, obviously we would need to curtail this research.

And that’s why we should hope that Covid-19 was caused by human error. As terrible as the implications of that are — millions dead, incalculable suffering and loss; all caused by scientific misjudgement — at least it tells us how to make ourselves safer going forward: we should stop doing the thing that creates that danger. If, on the other hand, Covid-19 is Mother Nature’s handiwork, then logically we are condemned to a sequence of pandemics; some natural, others accidental, some better and others far more deadly. Not a happy scenario by any stretch.

That’s pretty much my take as well. Treating all risks as equally likely and in need of mitigation is a formula for doing nothing. Mitigation plans have costs and trying to mitigate every possibility regardless of relative risk would mean who knows how many billions in cost with only marginal benefits.

There is one risk in his handling of bats that he doesn’t seem to appreciate but strikes me as a risk that should be considered. The biggest risk wasn’t that he would contract a virus from a bat that would kill him. The biggest risk was that he would contract a virus from a bat which was reasonably benign for him but which he could pass on to others in a potentially less benign and more contagious form. So, yes, bushmeat and exotic pets present risks but so does research in the byways of the earth that brings researchers into contact with heretofore unknown viruses.

4 comments… add one
  • Grey Shambler Link

    If the virus is a product of the Wuhan lab and that is never confirmed, what lesson do Chinese authorities take from that?
    a: The research is too dangerous and must be discontinued.
    b: We have within our reach a powerful new weapon. So do others. Therefore research efforts must be redoubled lest we lose this biological arms race.

  • bob sykes Link

    Mea Culpa. My engineering and science training made me assume Covid-19 was a natural product, especially since almost all viruses are. Déformation professionnelle, as the French say. But the publication of several thousand Fauci emails has changed that.

    That Fauci would repeatedly lie under oath to a Congressional Committee was unexpected. I’m at fault there, too. I was well aware of Fauci’s role in covering up Robert Gallo’s plagiarism of Luc Montagnier’s work on HIV.

    But worse, it is possible that the CDC, under Fauci’s direction, subsidized biological weapon research in China. WTF???!!!

    We need an investigation of the CDC’ own labs and those of USAMRIID.

    I thought I was cynical about all government actions and statements. It turns out I am not paranoid enough. No government official, elected, appointed, civil service should ever be believed. None. And at no level of government.

  • Drew Link

    Spare me. Science (and scientists) is not pure, because it is conducted by humans. (See also, AGW and the most recent study on the net, net effects on CO2 of EV’s and ICE’s.)

    This: “Mitigation plans have costs and trying to mitigate every possibility regardless of relative risk would mean who knows how many billions in cost with only marginal benefits.” says much of it.
    But it stops short as it discounts the motivations of bad people. Bureaucrats, politicians, profiteers, media…..

    Fauci is Exhibit A. He was an advocate of doing gain of function research. And he trusted, as only an incompetent or otherwise motivated bureaucrat could, Chinese morals and motivations. This is a sin that cannot be pardoned. (And one can only muse about his potential self interests.) And then, caught with his pants down, he lied and lied and lied. He advocated misdirected policies with tremendous costs.

    We know:
    1. He covered for Baric’s NIH funded research into gain of function research (and specifically identified as such) not just in N Carolina. But in the Wuhan Lab. He lied under oath about this.

    2. Grants were given to the Wuhan Lab not just funneled through the Clintonian-excuse of a third party of EcoHealth, but directly from Fauci’s NIAI. The grant numbers are : AI085524, 19AI109761, U19AI107810, F32AI102561, K99AG049092, and DK065988. You won’t here this from NPR, MSNBC, CNN etc or Nicole Wallace giving Fauci a good firm one.

    3. Fauci’s NIAI funded University of Texas in training Wuhan personnel.

    He has blood on his hands. Media have blood on their hands.

    I told anyone willing to listen this guy was a bad guy almost a year ago. Those willing to listen were few, if any. You have a separate post about partisanship. You confuse partisanship with cold blooded evaluation of people and motives just because the general topic falls into the political realm. This is part of our collective problem. Evenhandedness is not in and of itself a virtue. It can lead to great costs and is an Eloi-like stance. It will be taken advantage of.

  • CuriousOnlooker Link

    Mr Weinstein makes a fatal assumption — the historical record shows no research on finding the next potential pandemic virus has ever prevented said virus from doing its damage.

    The best evidence is this SARS-COV2. Researchers had been looking for the next SARS since SARS-COV. Lets assume the virus was zoonotic — the research didn’t prevent it from jumping species, didn’t offer intelligence on how to prevent its spread, didn’t help speed treatments.

    When I gave it some thought, I realize the whole premise is foolish. Suppose one found a potential zoonotic virus. How does one prevent evolution from occurring? How practical is it to devise a vaccine to a virus that must evolve to infect human hosts?

    My analogy is with nuclear. There are risks with nuclear war, accidental nuclear war, and nuclear power accidents. We invest heavily in reducing the risks of all three because the consequences are too large if a disaster happens.

Leave a Comment