But you state the wisdom pretty well.

The main ingredient in this wee academic deception is fear, and being transparent about only certain things, like hiding the fact, in plain view, that they are mucking around with computer models and some filthy brews - against gain-of-function bans. So, they play little shell-games with 'other' countries. Logic such as the general knowledge-level understanding that high mortality = need for a 'spreader', because humans will be dead, so the thing will not spread from human to human.

The ramifications are that an evil actor would need to disperse the virus, which has its own issues, i.e. method of undetected delivery. Or, there would be a bat-bite scare if it was proved that these are now deadly- although I imagine that such things can be managed, as in: don't go in bat-caves.

The fact that this paper has been published in a journal means it is supposedly peer-reviewed, but that has its own managerial failures. Peer-reviewers look for all sorts of things, but neglect others, such as , say, ethics. they are also lowly paid, so could be open for a little bit of, shall se say, fragrant grease. There is a secondary benefit, for those with deep pockets, that populations, or politicians or what-have-you will get scared.