There are 5 comments.

1. Lincoln
   ericB

   About the ambiguity of the virus “originating” in a Wuhan research lab, @jonahgoldberg claims that “no serious person believes” that “this is a man-made virus”. That also is too ambiguous.

   No one is proposing it was invented from scratch. There is no evidence of any intent to make a bioweapon.

   Nevertheless, research into genetically modified viruses is real. Due to the risks, new American research funding in certain areas was paused. Excerpt with emphasis added:

   Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, thereby enabling assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, informing public health and preparedness efforts, and furthering medical countermeasure development. Gain-of-function studies may entail biosafety and biosecurity risks; therefore, the risks and benefits of gain-of-function research must be evaluated, both in the context of recent U.S. biosafety incidents and to keep pace with new technological developments, in order to determine which types of studies should go forward and under what conditions.

   In light of recent concerns regarding biosafety and biosecurity, effective immediately, the U.S. Government (USG) will pause new USG funding for gain-of-function research on influenza, MERS or SARS viruses, as defined below.

   We had been doing this research, but stopped because of the risks of accidental release. Why should a “serious person” disregard the very plausible scenario that Chinese coronavirus research in Wuhan included gain-of-function research?

2. Lincoln
   ericB

   ericB (View Comment):
   Due to the risks, new American research funding in certain areas was paused. Excerpt with emphasis added:

   p.s. The text of the whole document is less than two pages. Here is one other excerpt worth quoting.

   New USG funding will not be released for gain-of-function research projects that may be reasonably anticipated to confer attributes to influenza, MERS, or SARS viruses such that the virus would have enhanced pathogenicity and/or transmissibility in mammals via the respiratory route. The research funding pause would not apply to characterization or testing of naturally occurring influenza, MERS, and SARS viruses, unless the tests are reasonably anticipated to increase transmissibility and/or pathogenicity.

   In parallel, we will encourage the currently-funded USG and non-USG funded research community to join in adopting a voluntary pause on research that meets the stated definition.

   Since we encouraged the “non-USG funded research community to join in a voluntary pause on” this type of coronavirus research, does that mean that a “serious person” should be persuaded that China (which has had to contend with other past coronavirus outbreaks and might want to prepare for future outbreaks) nevertheless certainly agreed voluntarily to completely abstain from gain-of-function research into coronaviruses?

   Or, if they did pursue gain-of-function coronavirus research even after we paused, should a “serious person” assume that they would now be forthcoming about their own gain-of-function coronavirus research?

3. Contributor
   HankRhody Freelance Philosopher

   David French: “People aren’t showing much courtesy.”

   Also David French: “The only reason people disagree with me must be unthinking contrarianism.”

   Yeah, get back to me about that first once you’ve done some thinking about that second.

4. Member
   Charlotte

   Jonah and The Fair Jessica could always homeschool Lucy for her senior year if her actual school is closed. Assuming she attends one of the private schools in DC, that might save them about $30,000.

5. Lincoln
   ericB

   Emphasis added:

   “For one thing, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, not far from the animal markets in downtown Wuhan, houses the world’s largest collection of coronaviruses from wild bats, including at least one virus that bears a resemblance to SARS-CoV-2. What’s more, Wuhan Institute of Virology scientists have for the past five years been engaged in so-called “gain of function” (GOF) research, which is designed to enhance certain properties of viruses for the purpose of anticipating future pandemics. Gain-of-function techniques have been used to turn viruses into human pathogens capable of causing a global pandemic.”

   From
   THE CONTROVERSIAL EXPERIMENTS AND WUHAN LAB SUSPECTED OF STARTING THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC
   Newsweek, 2020-04-27

   The article describes “Animal Passage” gain-of-function research and explains why it would be difficult to detect, if it was used to create the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

   Rutger’s Ebright, [an infectious disease expert at Rutgers, and] a longtime opponent of gain of function research, says that the Andersen analysis fails to rule out animal-passage as an origin of SARS-CoV-2. “The reasoning is unsound,” he wrote in an email to Newsweek. “They favor the possibility ‘that the virus mutated in an animal host such as a pangolins’ yet, simultaneously, they disfavor the possibility that the virus mutated in ‘animal passage.’ Because the two possibilities are identical, apart from location, one can’t logically favor one and disfavor the other.”

   A “serious person” cannot rule out animal-passage GOF research.