Comment by andrewflnr
1 hour ago
Is there a standard of evidence that would convince you it's ok to eliminate aedes aegypti? How much more evidence would it take? Or is your answer "no" regardless?
(And the asteroid strike thing was only an analogy for remote risk and the definition of fearmongering, not biotech in particular.)
The best evidence there is so far is that of the limited tests we've done on islands, and that gets pretty close to convincing me.
An answer like "we should roll out limited tests and incrementally understand the impact" would be a good one.
"there are other things called mosquitos" is not a good one.
Deciding here, without sufficient evidence, whether I'm OK with eliminating aedes aegypti would be frankly bizarre and totally unnecessary.
Similar to the prior point: the fact that advocates try to advocate for the end state and not, you know, propose ways to de-risk incremental learning, is discrediting.