Imagine this -
An alcoholic has money in their pocket. They need to eat, so they're about to spend that money on food. But then you pay for their food.
Then they take the money in their pocket that they were going to spend on food, and use that to buy booze. While you argue that you didn't pay for their booze.
There's probably a better way to word that, but you get the point.
Even if the money didn't directly go towards "gain of function research", it freed up other money to be used for "gain of function research". Now the government will pay for booze pay to mutate viruses. And pretend that they did nothing wrong.
Also, why are they stopping the funding of "gain of function" research in China, and not stopping the funding worldwide?
Imagine this -
An alcoholic has money in their pocket. They need to eat, so they're about to spend that money on food. But then you pay for their food.
Then they take the money in their pocket that they were going to spend on food, and use that to buy booze. While you argue that you didn't pay for their booze.
There's probably a better way to word that, but you get the point.
Even if the money didn't directly go towards "gain of function research", it freed up other money to be used for "gain of function research". Now the government will ~~pay for booze~~ pay to mutate viruses. And pretend that they did nothing wrong.
Also, why are they stopping the funding of "gain of function" research in China, and not stopping the funding worldwide?
(post is archived)