Sam Altman, the recently fired (and rehired) chief executive of Open AI, was asked earlier this year by his fellow tech billionaire Patrick Collison what he thought of the risks of synthetic biology. ‘I would like to not have another synthetic pathogen cause a global pandemic. I think we can all agree that wasn’t a great experience,’ he replied. ‘Wasn’t that bad compared to what it could have been, but I’m surprised there has not been more global coordination and I think we should have more of that.’

  • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is an institute of virology in Wuhan, but it is most likely that Covid-19 spread naturally from bats to humans.

    • Bat coronaviruses are common in the South China - Thailand - Myanmar region, and viruses jump host species all the time.

    • Labs that handle human pathogens are maintained under very high security. The one in Wuhan is BSL4, the highest security rating, and had prior experience handling coronaviruses. Also, the viruses themselves would be marked with radioactive isotopes. Even if they somehow got out of the building, it would be possible to find and quarantine all those exposed to it.

    • If it was released on purpose, then we can narrow the list of suspects down to the countries that can reliably make bioweapons and antidotes with close to 100% certainty. That’s the US, China and maybe Russia. The US and Russia were among the worst affected, and China wouldn’t have released the virus in China.

    So the most likely explanation is that it is a bat virus that jumped hosts.

    • Evinceo@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      the viruses themselves would be marked with radioactive isotopes.

      Is that true? Once the virus replicated in a cell, the new copies wouldn’t be tagged, right?

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The new ones wouldn’t. But the original radioactive atoms would still be in your body, and they can be detected (within a reasonable amount of time).

        Edit: But if the new viruses infect another person, they wouldn’t have the radioactivity. So usually, in case of a leak, the plan would be to quarantine anyone exposed to the viruses (as detected by radioactivity) and anyone who has been with them that day.

        • Evinceo@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          For the lab leak theory to work you have to assume not only that some workers at the lab got infected, but also that they spread it all over the city before anybody noticed, such that by the time anyone did notice, they were several degrees of contact from the lab workers.

        • Andrew Wade@hachyderm.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          @emergencyfood @Evinceo Naw. People have some radioactive atoms in their bodies all the time. But the viruses are marked in another way: they have particular genetic sequences. And with the march of technology the Wuhan Institute of Virology would have sequenced the viruses they were studying and been able to compare the sequences on file with the Covid-19 pathogen.

    • Ibex0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      the viruses themselves would be marked with radioactive isotopes. Even if they somehow got out of the building, it would be possible to find and quarantine all those exposed to it.

      China wouldn’t have released the virus in China

      You don’t know that. Nobody knows that, because China destroyed all the evidence. If this was true, they could have proved it, they could have shown the world! “Behold our innocence!!” Why didn’t that happen?

      • zogwarg@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One (simpler) explanation is that proving an absence of something is almost impossible, and that attempting too hard would make them look a heck of a lot guilty.

        There is a good reason why the burden of evidence is “innocent until proven guilty”, and yes this extends to the (in your eyes) untrustworthy.

        Prove to me you never stole candy from a store as a child (or if you did, replace that accusation with any item of higher value until you hit something you did not steal)

        • Soyweiser@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is also the whole ‘why would we have to prove anything? We are fucking China!’ stance all big hegemonic countries have.

          • Shitgenstein1@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not just big hegemonic countries in general but specifically the particularly image-obsessed character of geopolitics in East Asia. Mianzi is a real concern in Chinese diplomacy.

      • Shitgenstein1@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        because China destroyed all the evidence.

        lmao, if you don’t have evidence for X, you don’t have evidence that X is being suppressed. You just lack evidence.

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t know that.

        Yes, but we can reason based on what we know.

        If this was true, they could have proved it, they could have shown the world! “Behold our innocence!!” Why didn’t that happen?

        Most likely the municipality were trying to cover up corruption in the regulation of the wet markets. Maybe they ignored health and safety laws in return for bribes, and didn’t want that to come out.