I used to read health code reports on restaurants.
Obviously, there were some that had such bad reports that you don’t want to eat there, but the ones that had some slight marks against them were actually generally going to be safer than the ones that had none.
They had flaws pointed out, and fixed them, as opposed to the restaurants where such flaws were not detected.
I dunno exactly how it works in biomedical labs, and maybe they are more lax than restaurants, but the very fact that this particular risk was more highly scrutinized gives me reason to think that they were overly protective of that vector, rather than lax about it.
You are backtracking. You specifically called out the possibility of a failure of protocols as a “dramatic scenario” What exactly is so implausible about it?
You aren’t happy with the USA concerns raised in 2018?
As for the WHO, I suggest you find out exactly what their “investigation” of the lab entailed.
Were they given full freedom to go where they choose and speak to whomever they wanted?
Were they given access to all the data they wanted?
How long were they there?
Answers are No, No, and three and a half hours respectively.
One of the WHO inspectors had the following to say
Frank, open discussion. Key questions asked & answered,” team member Peter Daszak said on Twitter.
Which sounds great. Thanks Peter, But hang on, aren’t you the same Peter Daszak with a massive conflict of interest here? why yes, yes you are.
That is unfortunate to say the least and pretty much torpedoes any semblance of rigour or credibility. Any investigation has to be independent and obviously so.
It is a hugely strong statement with absolutely nothing behind it that I can see. I’m not claiming to be smarter than the WHO but after 20+ years experience with preparing and executing audits with some of the most exacting regulatory bodies in the world I can conclude confidently that I’m a damn sight more thorough in my approach, forensic in my investigation and meticulous with the wording of my conclusions.
I wouldn’t dare to make such sweeping statements based on such thin pickings.
How do you tell the difference between flaws not present and flaws not detected?
The only way to be certain is to be scrupulous and consistent and that the establishment in question is completely open to investigation and/or audit.
I agree that those with zero findings but with a lack of openness and less exposure to full investigations present a greater risk than those with minor findings and willingness to fix them.
But what sort of establishment are we dealing with here? and how can we find that out other than by in-depth and independent investigation.
They damn well should not be.
But that’s just the problem. Three and a half hours of self-selected interviews, selected document release and stage-managed tours is wholly inadequate to find out if that is true. The lack of openness is problematic in itself.
Consider your restaurant analogy. How happy would you be if a restaurant with a previous finding regarding freezer temps and loading protocols said “OK, you can look in this freezer but not that one, and we’ll provide you with logs for last month but nothing prior and you can speak to this employee but not that one”
Still confident?
No, not at all. The failure of a protocol isn’t dramatic at all. In fact they happen frequently worldwide and seldom if ever result in an infection, let alone a full-blown pandemic.
I’ve reiterated a couple of times the number of different unlikely events that would need to happen in the case of a lab release, and why it’s much less likely than a random animal contact event. That’s what I label dramatic, if you’re getting hung up on that word.
Yes, let’s look at that article, shall we?
So much for the Chinese evidence.
Weird that you disparage the WHO investigation for not being rigorous enough, yet you uncritically take the word of two American diplomats with no other special access or credentials. And strange that you pointed to a Chinese article about “issues” without mentioning that the overall safety rating was given high marks.
It begins to look like you’re selectively weighting evidence to support prior conclusions.
then why include it as an example of a dramatic scenario?
oh! their website says it has all been fixed and is now OK. Phew! glad that’s sorted. Next time I have major findings I’m going to try that approach with the MHRA and FDA and see if they’ll take me at my word.
The WHO are not meaningfully “investigating” at all. The diplomatic cables are corroborated by the second article seeing as issues were indeed raised. Have they truly been fixed? How might we find out?
That is specfically what I’m not doing. I believe the natural explanation is the likely one. That’s my prior conclusion if any. Those that dismiss the lab-leak hypothesis without good reason seem to be the ones with the confirmation bias filters on and that is dangerous.
Regardless of what turns out to be the true cause the inablility or unwillingness of the WHO to scrutinise the lab properly sends completely the wrong message. Credibility is everything.
I explained this in the post you replied to, and I won’t be repeating myself.
The article doesn’t say this came from “the website”. It refers to the source document of the Chinese review, whose contents you were just using to support your argument, which is posted on “the website.”
It’s your own source, trash it if you want, but it undermines your own position.
Oh, you mean they’re corroborated by the source that you provided yourself, which you just finished trashing after I showed that it contradicts your position?
If you’re not even going to read your own cites for comprehension, I don’t know how to continue engaging with you, so I think I’ll stop now.
How does it contradict my position? which is, let me remind you, that issues were raised with the operation of the lab.
The evidence we have for that are the diplomatic cables from 2018, backed up by the findings of the internal Chinese investigation which also states that overall everything was great and the issues have been fixed. Let’s not forget either that it was this very same lab which belatedly remembered that yes, it had actually got some virus samples from a fatal infection incident in 2013 that it had neglected to mention previously, along with others, that had undergone research that they were not willing or not able to share.
I’m not trashing the source, I’m saying I’m not going to accept them marking their own homework without some degree of independent oversight. Nor should you and, defnitely, nor should the WHO.
I think that’d be best. You getting confused with what you think I am claiming.
This is not just about this incident, this is about rigour. This is about setting a precedent. Allowing a lab with a prior history of issues, and a record of opacity regarding their research, on the doorstep of a pandemic outbreak, of the type that their research specifically deals with, to escape proper scrutiny is a terrible precedent to set.
A straight question to you. Do you think the lab should make itself available for a full and independent audit. Why or why not?
I’ve been through lab safety audits (not biological, but chemical) and “five non-conformities” are usually things like improper labeling of waste bins, safety instructions not in every lab, eyewash more than X feet away from hood, etc. If real dangers were found, they don’t get called “non-conformities”. And observations are just what they sound like. Within code, but not a best practice based on what other labs do. When we got reports like this, we congratulated the lab manager and asked when the non-conformities would be resolved (generally within days).
And If that is truly the state of the lab then there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by them being open to full and independent inspection and audit.
Yes, exactly this. Lots of breathless speculation by folks who haven’t spent much time around labs, over what’s likely nothing more than some procedural signage being a year or two out of date. I swear this whole thing is like when Reddit thought they caught the Boston Marathon Bomber.
Remember this source that you brought in over the “Chinese issues?”
When I pointed out that the same report’s overall conclusion was “a high evaluation of the overall safety management”, suddenly you decided that your cited report is no good because they’re “marking their own homework” (your words). On what authority are you arbitrarily deciding some parts of the report are credible and some aren’t? Why did you even offer the report as evidence if you judge it to be not credible?
I’ve addressed this a couple of times in my earlier posts, so I won’t be repeating myself for someone who obviously has a severe case of selective reading.
Through bitter experience I am happy to accept at face value that those deficiencies in the lab exist. There is no benefit to them in inventing them. That the deficiencies are real is also in line with the realisation by China that a general beefing up of controls were needed, also with the cables to the USA in 2018 and also with the sloppiness of the lab lead in reporting what they had, when and what they were doing with them.
I am less happy to accept that the the deficiencies as reported represent the totality of the issues, that they have been solved in a satisfactory way or that the overall rating is accurate.
To be more confident in that is exactly where an independent audit comes in. Not only of the lab conditions but of the self-audit process itself.
Here’s an open letter that has been put together that neatly lays out the problems with the WHO approach as it is now and recommendations for what a proper investigation looks like. I recommend you give it a read.
“yes” would have taken up far less typing time.
So we both agree that a full and thorough independent investigation of the lab is required. I hope we both agree that the WHO is nowhere near that level currently.
I’d like to hear in your own words why you think it is important for that to be done.
And as I type I read that the WHO is scrapping their interim report which was due shortly. We’ll see what follows from that.
So, in other words, you’re cherry-picking the parts you like from your source. Got it.
You could have saved even more time by reading the first time I stated this:
And my position on this is really more nuanced than a yes/no answer. I see an independent lab investigation as “nice to have if we can get it.” I think it’s worth attempting to negotiate the kind of investigation you describe. I find it quite unlikely that we’ll get such an investigation. Given that any investigation turns up some inconsequential issues, and certain high-profile critics are blaming China with no evidence at all, why would they assent to give such bad-faith critics any ammunition at all? That attitude doesn’t please me, but it’s understandable.
So, given that we’re most likely not going to get the sort of investigation you want, what can we conclude from the evidence we have? The evidence favoring the non-lab scenario is sufficiently compelling, and not yet exhaustively researched. So if we can’t get that lab access, I have no problem whatsoever accepting the overwhelmingly more likely natural emergence scenario.
You can conclude very little about the likelihood of a lab leak based on the evidence thus far.
That approach is illuminating, I’m reminded of the old joke of the drunk man walking home at night. He loses his keys and is searching for them under the glow of a street light. He hasn’t lost them there but that’s the only place he can look for them.
You shouldn’t be willing to accept an explanation just because it is the only one you can fully explore. You shouldn’t feel forced to accept any explanation until you have good evidence to do so. That bar has not been crossed for any explanation yet.
And I think we have very different ways of using the word “compelling”.
That cable from the USA in 2018 showed a lack of scientific knowledge on the most important aspect of the subject. They were worried about bat viruses which have been shown to be unable to infect humans.
And your comments here betray an ignorance of how risk should be assessed in such circumstances.
Their concerns were to do with safety and management deficiencies. The importance of such deficiencies are independent of the work being carried out.
If you are sloppy when it supposedly doesn’t matter you are potentially sloppy when it does. That is the whole point of creating robust protocols and sticking to them. And you do not create a lab of that significance and with that rating if you are never carrying out work that presents a substantial risk.
This does not even touch upon the fact that we don’t know what research was being carried out at that time because it wasn’t and hasn’t been disclosed.
No regulatory authority worth its salt would let you get away with bad practices just because the substance or activity at that point in time, presented a lower risk. You audit to the worst case scenario. Nothing else makes sense.
So yes, that is integral to my job, a tried and tested approach that has been put under scrutiny to the most exacting standards with real-world legal implications and I’m sure about it.
@HMS_Irruncible
I’d like to point out a couple of problems with your cite as a source. From their website: No.1 Funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, UNICIF, The UN and the Global healthcare initiative. Is there a possible conflict of interest and possibly their funding of pharmecutical companies to create, patent and sell vaccines for profit to UN member states and promoting developing countries to vaccinate the children and funding. Just asking?