Which is obviously absurd, so there is definitely something else going on.
1. You don't know what my position actually is, as I haven't stated it
2. You are confusing assertion and evidence
In order to be even remotely convincing, you would have to show that the risk/reward ratio of GoF is stacked against GoF. Right now, you're just aggressively telling us that it is.
You'll note that no matter how bad you demonstrate COVID to be, the opposition could (rightly!) claim that there are potentially worse diseases. And no matter how bad you postulate a future GoF-related outbreak might be, they could postulate a scenario in which humanity were saved by GoF.
This is a hard question. It's literally a philosophical one. I really wish you wouldn't be so snarky.
HOW GoF helped us to fight Covid? How the process that most likely played a huge role of creating the virus also helped us fighting it? Everyone how defends GoF tells us plebs, it helps us to fight future epidemics, but no one give us an example how it is helping the current one.
Assuming that we ever get the honest and open public debate about COVID-19's origins, and if it was a lab leak from WIV and was related to GoF research, then certainly the potential benefits of GoF research would be weighed against the potential dangers. I don't take a position one way or another in that conversation at this point, because I think it's premature.
The fight we are facing right now is whether we're even allowed to have that debate or whether any discussion of the WIV as a possible origin is stamped out as anathema.
I find myself on the side of "follow the evidence" and "question everything" rather than "you're a conspiracy theorist if you even entertain this idea."
However, "follow the evidence" applies to science. You are describing an ethical question, which means you are doing philosophy.
