If it was 50% likely that people would break the speed limit when driving, should they be banned from driving?
It's easy to make false equivalences all day long but it is of no benefit to anybody.
If their breaking the speed limit would result in 3M human deaths plus the loss of 4% of the world's GDP with no offsetting benefit, then I think they probably should? So I agree that the equivalences aren't too helpful.
The point is that we should consider both the cost and the benefit of any regulation, in an expected value sense. Cars do kill people, but they also provide transportation that we've judged is worth that cost. But there's little indication that the WIV's (USA-funded!) risky research has delivered any significant benefit--the predicted coronavirus pandemic has indeed occurred, whatever the cause, and has anything from the WIV's work help us deal with that? On the other hand, even a small chance that their work caused this pandemic is a hugely negative expected value.
Long before the pandemic, there was obscure, academic debate over whether certain types of research with potential pandemic pathogens were worth the risk. Even with the evidence available at that time, I believe the 2014 ban was good, and its 2017 lifting was bad; but that debate now that takes on terrible new significance.
Someone else stated it well, but while neither equivalence is accurate, mine is a lot closer.
Speeding is common (difficult to prevent) and exhibits low downside risk. An intruder in the house is rare and carries an enormous downside risk. Which one is more analogous to the escape of a dangerous virus from a lab?
