Breh, what you're saying has nothing to do with what I said. You posted a link to an article about something from 5 years ago....which seems to suggest you think it's COVID-19 related....but the same link, after it was updated, says it has nothing to do with COVID-19.
So I'm just confused as to why you'd post that link, or what you think it implies.
As far as being concerned....I'm more concerned with the PPP running out of money, than the government potentially funding/creating/looking the other way when a new virus is being created. They been doing shyt like that before either of us were born. Yes it's alarming but it's par for the course.
Fred.
Breh non of the below concerns you? Ok. Thats cool. I think myself and many others are legit concerned by it though. So let us cook.
Ralph Baric, an infectious-disease researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, last week (November 9) published a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice, according to the team’s results, which were published in
Nature Medicine.
In October 2013, the US government
put a stop to all federal funding for gain-of-function studies, with particular concern rising about influenza, SARS, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). “NIH [National Institutes of Health] has funded such studies because they help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, enable the assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, and inform public health and preparedness efforts,” NIH Director Francis Collins said in a
statement at the time. “These studies, however, also entail biosafety and biosecurity risks, which need to be understood better.”
Baric’s study on the SHC014-chimeric coronavirus began before the moratorium was announced, and the NIH allowed it to proceed during a review process, which eventually led to the conclusion that the work did not fall under the new restrictions, Baric told
Nature. But some researchers, like Wain-Hobson, disagree with that decision.
The debate comes down to how informative the results are. “The only impact of this work is the creation, in a lab, of a new, non-natural risk,” Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist and biodefence expert at Rutgers University, told
Nature.
But Baric and others argued the study’s importance. “[The results] move this virus from a candidate emerging pathogen to a clear and present danger,” Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance, which samples viruses from animals and people in emerging-diseases hotspots across the globe, told
Nature.
. 
