A thought experiment about SARS2 origin

[intrepidity]

I read something that got me wondering how the right-wingers would have responded to this pandemic viz a viz masking and shutdowns etc *IF*, from the beginning, it was shown to be or even admitted to having been a lab leak incident?

Would they have taken it more seriously (because it would seem to justify their native racism)? The fact that so many of them now embrace the whole bioweapon malarkey seems to demonstrate their bent in this direction anyway.

But what I'm asking is whether there would have been a tangible difference in how we responded in the early days that might have made a difference? Like, that mask-wearing would have been an outward expression of their inner xenophobia, and they'd proudly do that.

Or--on a more visceral level--do you think the (legitimate) fear of this virus would have been sufficiently heightened if they *knew* it had come out of a lab, and thus there was no way this would just be "like the flu"? Remember, these guys are all about playing the victim card, hard. Plus, they are strongly fear-driven.

Would things have been substantially different if--again, *from the outset*--this was an acknowledged bona fide lab leak situation?

Please note: this is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. Not a discussion on the lab leak theory, or a rehash of how responses failed, or any of that. I am interested in reading thoughtful opinions on the question posed.

[RockRaven]

1. All other things being equal, no, they'd have behaved the same. Because the former guy said it

was going away, going down to zero, etc. Because the former guy didn't want testing, because the former guy wouldn't wear a mask. Their fealty to him would have dictated their behavior like it did in reality.

A bunch of them do actually currently believe it a Chinese bio weapon which was intentionally released, and those same assholes still won't mask up, stay home, or get vaccinated.

[intrepidity]

6. But, how would TFG's actions have differed?

He was practically screaming bloody murder when lab leak wasn't even considered seriously; how would he have behaved--specifically with respect to our response--if it was a priori acknowledged as having been a lab leak?

I don't know the answer exactly, but I am nearly certain that there would have been a difference.

That's what I'm wondering about.

[Moostache]

2. I believe the answer is "no"...

Just look at their current actions or lack thereof regarding getting AVAILABLE vaccines...

Even if they whole-heartedly accept nefarious conspiracy origin theories, they STILL are not rushing to get life-saving vaccinations, even though they could.

[intrepidity]

5. The thing about using their current actions as evidence

is that their current actions are predicated on the actual past events.

What I'm asking involves a completely altered premise: that from the start, say in December 2019, it was known and acknowledged as having been a lab leak scenario.

Do you still think that changes nothing?

[KT2000]

3. they would have done anything

their internet overlords told them to do as they are now. They certainly do not require common sense or science for their decisions.

[intrepidity]

4. Sure, that's a given.

So, then frame the question in the OP towards those people, the influencers.

Now what do you think?