Here is what I think he is missing in his analysis. If an investigation early on (or now) did tie the outbreak to the Wuhan Lab, that would lead to more questions. Part of that investigation would be discovering who knew what when, and how they responded. His analysis is creating two broad buckets of Doves that see confusion and misunderstanding, and Hawks who see malice. But a good investigation might lead to factual reasons to lean one way or the other.
Studying Chernobyl let us know most Soviets weren't out to murder their fellow Europeans, but they were also too scared to tell the truth - which led to a lot of death and destruction. That's an explanation, not an excuse. We might find similar explanations - but it should change how we deal with the government and trade partners there.
Agreed! And good analogy to Chernobyl. I appreciated the article but thought the "It doesn't really matter much either way." conclusion was a bit dismissive and unimaginative.
Also, Hawks and Doves are one thing, but in this case I feel like you'd have to be an Ostrich to not be suspicious of the Chinese government. They kicked off the pandemic by arresting and silencing many of those who tried to speak out and raise the alarm!