> The lesson here is not “we need to prove it was a lab leak,” the lesson is “we need better visibility inside China.” Which is also true for viruses that arise naturally inside China.
The WIV was conducting research with US financial and technical support. The lab in question regarding a potential leak was funded in part to look for early signs of outbreaks.
If there was a lab leak and it was inadvertently caused by this lab, would you suggest that we continue to fund and provide support with no changes?
> One of my frustrations with the “lab leak theory” is that it seems to cause fuzzy thinking about future preparedness.
I can't speak to what you've seen elsewhere, but future preparedness should involve more transparency, safeguards that samples are being tested with the right safety levels and actual independent oversight.
It seems crazy to continue funding a bad faith actor without those conditions.
The WIV was conducting research with US financial and technical support. The lab in question regarding a potential leak was funded in part to look for early signs of outbreaks.
If there was a lab leak and it was inadvertently caused by this lab, would you suggest that we continue to fund and provide support with no changes?
> One of my frustrations with the “lab leak theory” is that it seems to cause fuzzy thinking about future preparedness.
I can't speak to what you've seen elsewhere, but future preparedness should involve more transparency, safeguards that samples are being tested with the right safety levels and actual independent oversight.
It seems crazy to continue funding a bad faith actor without those conditions.