In cases like this, I tend to simply say "I don't know", and leave it at that.
I think that's better than coming up with any kind of number, which is then all too likely to take on a life of its own, and persist in spite of any additional relevant data that may appear.
Fortunately, I don't have any decisions to make that would benefit from being partly based on this answer.
But this is the whole point of doing a Bayesian analysis: to see how the probability changes if additional relevant data appear. "I don't know" simply means that the currently available data doesn't favor a particular event. But you can only see that after you have done the analysis.
While that's a very fair response, the reality as it occurred made that kind of response problematic. In what should have been "I don't know" the official narrative became "definitely the wet market and you're not allowed to say or speculate otherwise." Which is weird, right? You would think that an official narrative from experts would be sufficient for people to accept and move on. But we didn't move on, or even tolerate people still looking.
That the Chinese government repressed any stories of the virus's origins, and several of the people involved in spreading the narrative turned out to be directly implicated, both add to the dilemma. Given a world in which shady people try to force one point of view, it may be ethically required to pursue the alternative, if only for balance and to ensure that truth cannot be discredited by powerful or well connected elites.
Thanks. That's a more detailed and sophisticated version of the analysis than mine, comes up with an 89% probability, starting with a prior weighted against escape (.7% prior probability). It reports three known labs doing the relevant sort of research.
Yes and notice the date Oct. 2020. I would say that the longer we have with no animal pathway found the more probable lab leak. I was deep into lab leak in 2020. I liked this link too.
What Dino said. People will choose the numbers they want to get the conclusion they want. Just because you have equations doesn't make it any more "rational."
It might be that scientists don't want to believe their research killed so many. But I think it is more that everyone who is thoughtful realized that, at the time, saying "lab leak" would unleash violence against Asian people around the world.
It isn't obvious that "lab leak" would result in more violence than "wet market." China supposedly shut down live animal markets after SARS, so if Covid came from a Chinese live animal animal market openly operating, which is the alternative hypothesis people were arguing for, that would also be the fault of the Chinese.
If the objective was to avoid blame falling on China, the argument would have been natural zoonetic origin, not zoonetic origin in a live animal market. On the other hand, if the objective was to shift blame away from virologists and U.S. funders of research at the WIV, the live animal market theory works.
Take a look at that Lancet letter and see if there is any plausible interpretation other than an attempt by virologists and funders to persuade people that they were not the ones at fault. It makes a very strong claim, attacks those who disagree, and never mentions that one of the authors had a direct connection to the WIV research despite claiming no conflicts of interest. That's fraud.
Have such outbreaks of violence occurred in previous outbreaks? Nothing has been as wide-spread as this since the Spanish flu, but there have been various scares: SARS, AIDS, Ebola, Legionaire's disease, a few I’ve forgotten.
The noble lie theory sets us up from a backlash if the truth comes out. And innocent/noble motives for lying about the source are not the only possibilities. There are many questions regarding what sort of research was going on and who was directing and funding it. Whether or not skullduggery has actually occurred, these events have revealed a source of potential bias in the institutional structure of virological research. I am not reassured that there is strong accountability built into the system.
Or more likely unleash bad poll numbers against leaders that have been lying to us after killing us.
But of course the math on that one is if the Democrats *won* because they accidentally created and unleashed a pandemic that they then used to their advantage politically to create a pervasive atmosphere of censorship, to win an election and immediately start trying to push Europe and Asia into a new world war, which outcome is more likely to kill large numbers of Asians? Us knowing WE funded the lab leak? Or that the "benign" fascism resulting from the lies and cover ups in China and similar political decisions of COVID made it easier to start or escalate wars based on similar lies and protected by similar censorship (blowing up a pipeline, say)?
Hint: the later has non-zero odds of killing every Asian on the planet.
In cases like this, I tend to simply say "I don't know", and leave it at that.
I think that's better than coming up with any kind of number, which is then all too likely to take on a life of its own, and persist in spite of any additional relevant data that may appear.
Fortunately, I don't have any decisions to make that would benefit from being partly based on this answer.
But this is the whole point of doing a Bayesian analysis: to see how the probability changes if additional relevant data appear. "I don't know" simply means that the currently available data doesn't favor a particular event. But you can only see that after you have done the analysis.
While that's a very fair response, the reality as it occurred made that kind of response problematic. In what should have been "I don't know" the official narrative became "definitely the wet market and you're not allowed to say or speculate otherwise." Which is weird, right? You would think that an official narrative from experts would be sufficient for people to accept and move on. But we didn't move on, or even tolerate people still looking.
That the Chinese government repressed any stories of the virus's origins, and several of the people involved in spreading the narrative turned out to be directly implicated, both add to the dilemma. Given a world in which shady people try to force one point of view, it may be ethically required to pursue the alternative, if only for balance and to ensure that truth cannot be discredited by powerful or well connected elites.
For starters in effects policy decisions related to microbial research labs.
See also: <https://www.rootclaim.com/analysis/What-is-the-source-of-COVID-19-SARS-CoV-2> for a similar analysis
Thanks. That's a more detailed and sophisticated version of the analysis than mine, comes up with an 89% probability, starting with a prior weighted against escape (.7% prior probability). It reports three known labs doing the relevant sort of research.
Yes and notice the date Oct. 2020. I would say that the longer we have with no animal pathway found the more probable lab leak. I was deep into lab leak in 2020. I liked this link too.
https://project-evidence.github.io/
If you believe the WIV engineered SARS2, then published RaTG13: You are probably a simpleton (unlike KGA)
https://jimhaslam.substack.com/p/6-if-you-believe-the-wiv-engineered
What Dino said. People will choose the numbers they want to get the conclusion they want. Just because you have equations doesn't make it any more "rational."
It might be that scientists don't want to believe their research killed so many. But I think it is more that everyone who is thoughtful realized that, at the time, saying "lab leak" would unleash violence against Asian people around the world.
Also: https://jabberwocking.com/three-reasons-to-believe-that-covid-evolved-naturally-not-in-a-lab/
It isn't obvious that "lab leak" would result in more violence than "wet market." China supposedly shut down live animal markets after SARS, so if Covid came from a Chinese live animal animal market openly operating, which is the alternative hypothesis people were arguing for, that would also be the fault of the Chinese.
If the objective was to avoid blame falling on China, the argument would have been natural zoonetic origin, not zoonetic origin in a live animal market. On the other hand, if the objective was to shift blame away from virologists and U.S. funders of research at the WIV, the live animal market theory works.
Take a look at that Lancet letter and see if there is any plausible interpretation other than an attempt by virologists and funders to persuade people that they were not the ones at fault. It makes a very strong claim, attacks those who disagree, and never mentions that one of the authors had a direct connection to the WIV research despite claiming no conflicts of interest. That's fraud.
Have such outbreaks of violence occurred in previous outbreaks? Nothing has been as wide-spread as this since the Spanish flu, but there have been various scares: SARS, AIDS, Ebola, Legionaire's disease, a few I’ve forgotten.
The noble lie theory sets us up from a backlash if the truth comes out. And innocent/noble motives for lying about the source are not the only possibilities. There are many questions regarding what sort of research was going on and who was directing and funding it. Whether or not skullduggery has actually occurred, these events have revealed a source of potential bias in the institutional structure of virological research. I am not reassured that there is strong accountability built into the system.
Or more likely unleash bad poll numbers against leaders that have been lying to us after killing us.
But of course the math on that one is if the Democrats *won* because they accidentally created and unleashed a pandemic that they then used to their advantage politically to create a pervasive atmosphere of censorship, to win an election and immediately start trying to push Europe and Asia into a new world war, which outcome is more likely to kill large numbers of Asians? Us knowing WE funded the lab leak? Or that the "benign" fascism resulting from the lies and cover ups in China and similar political decisions of COVID made it easier to start or escalate wars based on similar lies and protected by similar censorship (blowing up a pipeline, say)?
Hint: the later has non-zero odds of killing every Asian on the planet.