“The B.1.1.529 (omicron) Spike looks a whole lot like a ‘polymutant’ Spike experimentally generated to evade antibody responses from infection or vaccination”
If the spike looks a lot like one that was experimentally generated to evade antibody responses, what are the odds that Omicron was created through such experiments?
Alternatively, gain of function research is useful and gives us advanced warning of natural mutations. I don’t know if that is the one true narrative , but I’m not ruling it out.
That’s certainly the argument its proponents make, and perhaps it’s true in some circumstances. But after looking at some of the research grants made to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the years leading up to the outbreak, it’s clear to me that there really is dangerous research out there whose theoretical benefits are vastly outweighed by the costs.
For example, there was some really dangerous gain-of-function research happening in a BSL-2 facility, which are just not designed to contain dangerous pathogens.
But we inherently need international agreements to deal with these problems. I believe the US banning gain of function research in 2015 was one of the driving factors that pushed the research overseas into Wuhan.
But we inherently need international agreements to deal with these problems. I believe the US banning gain of function research in 2015 was one of the driving factors that pushed the research overseas into Wuhan.
That seems doubtful to me. It seems to me like as part of wanting world class scientists this is something the Chinese wanted regardless of US research policy as long as the research is held at high esteem by the international scientific community.
Alternatively, gain of function research is useful and gives us advanced warning of natural mutations.
Even if it would produce useful information, that might still be the case that Omicron exists for those reasons. It’s strange to use the word alternatively hear when any information gained doesn’t negate the cost of potentially producing variants like Omicron.
To the extend that you believe that there’s useful information, can you give any example of anything useful coming out of it?
Whether or not something provides valuable information is orthogonal from it being dangerous. The two aren’t alternatives. Something can be valuable&dangerous.
Alternatively, gain of function research is useful and gives us advanced warning of natural mutations. I don’t know if that is the one true narrative , but I’m not ruling it out.
That’s certainly the argument its proponents make, and perhaps it’s true in some circumstances. But after looking at some of the research grants made to the Wuhan Institute of Virology in the years leading up to the outbreak, it’s clear to me that there really is dangerous research out there whose theoretical benefits are vastly outweighed by the costs.
For example, there was some really dangerous gain-of-function research happening in a BSL-2 facility, which are just not designed to contain dangerous pathogens.
But we inherently need international agreements to deal with these problems. I believe the US banning gain of function research in 2015 was one of the driving factors that pushed the research overseas into Wuhan.
That seems doubtful to me. It seems to me like as part of wanting world class scientists this is something the Chinese wanted regardless of US research policy as long as the research is held at high esteem by the international scientific community.
Even if it would produce useful information, that might still be the case that Omicron exists for those reasons. It’s strange to use the word alternatively hear when any information gained doesn’t negate the cost of potentially producing variants like Omicron.
To the extend that you believe that there’s useful information, can you give any example of anything useful coming out of it?
If you want to determine the balance of evidence, by all means do so, but you can’t do that by completely disregarding the alternative explanation.
There was a time when thus place was all about the avoidance of bias.
Whether or not something provides valuable information is orthogonal from it being dangerous. The two aren’t alternatives. Something can be valuable&dangerous.
If the value is in saving lives, then the two are not orthogonal.