10 ms·

If I'm reading correctly, the bet covered events in a period of 4 years. Given this, I think Pinker had the better side of the wager. Of course, with hindsight

If I'm reading correctly, the bet covered events in a period of 4 years. Given this, I think Pinker had the better side of the wager. Of course, with hindsight he was wrong, but with hindsight I'm a lottery winner. With any starting year between 2000 and 2016, Pinker would have won. I'd guess that's the case for the next decade, too.

hervature 6y ago
Where was the bioerror? Unless you believe COVID-19 came from a lab, then Pinker won.
- garmaine 6y ago
  The bioerror was in letting it spread.
  - hervature 6y ago
    By that definition, Tuberculosis which kills 1.5 million every year. Doesn't quite satisfy the bet by itself but a few lopsided months could easily be 1 million in a 6 month period. Regardless, I don't think the lack of disease prevention was the intent of bioerror. The article says that bioerror is supposed to have the same outcomes as bioterror but I believe the implication is that it is also caused by a single human or organization.
  - grupthink 6y ago
    Rees's argument specifically mentions that it must be an error relating to biotechnology (possibly caused by "wierdos [sic] with the mindset of the people who now design computer viruses"). There is no proof that the coronavirus was created or unleashed intentionally or accidentally.
    - spekcular 6y ago
      I misread the terms of the bet. So Pinker won, even with hindsight!
      - imtringued 6y ago
        I feel like it's a wash. Sure we have a million causalities but is it really a bioerror? The problem is that the definition of bioerror is not in the bet itself. I personally think this bet should either be invalid, someone should flip a coin or the one who submitted the bet should pay because he can always word the bet in a way that favors himself. If bioerror is kept ambiguous then he would win through redefining the terms of the bet by a later date.
  - gorgoiler 6y ago
    Well said, and I appreciate the irony. For many years to come we will look back — in bewilderment — at the political decision to pursue herd immunity. This certainly wasn’t the kind of focused, individual “bioerror” to which the bet referred, but an error (and one of many) it surely was.
    - timeeater 6y ago
      No, we will look back in bewilderment on how the whole world could have become gripped by a panic. Looking back, we will be able to look at excess deaths, not alarmist predictions.
      - scoopertrooper 6y ago
        We have a lot of excess death data already and it definitely doesn't indicate that we've overreacted.
        timeeater 6y ago
        It's surprisingly difficult to find data for previous years. I think we need a bigger picture, including the data for 2021 (when it has passed). I found one CDC number of 12% excess deaths in the US this year. It's not obvious if that is an extreme event or not. I know for some other countries there were also big events in the past decade, but before 2017. The nature of averages is that some years will below them and some years will above them. Here is one criticism but I don't know if it has merit, I only found it by googling for data of older years and I don't have the time to dig into it right now. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/covid_problems_cdcs_method_of_estimating_expected_deaths_and_excess_deaths_is_misleading.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/covid_probl...
        hef19898 6y ago
        It is easy enough, and a 12% increase in anything YoY is significant enough to wrry about. That number is, my I remind you, with all the measures and lockdowns put in place. And picking some random link of a random google search confirming your opinion without having read it s propably the best example of confirmation bias I have seen in quite a while.
  - timeeater 6y ago
    Bullshit, it was about a biotech error, a menace created in the lab. Also you need citations for you claim that it would have been possible to stop the spread.
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      > Also you need citations for you claim that it would have been possible to stop the spread. There's plenty of countries who stopped the spread early on. With a concerted, worldwide, coherent effort, we could have done much better and, likely, have stopped the spread months ago. Unfortunately, this all breaks down in the face of rogue states like the US.
      - timeeater 6y ago
        There are only some islands who are in the position to effectively restrict travel, and totalitarian states whose numbers can't be trusted. Infection rates vary by countries, but a lot of it is driven by hotspot outbreaks . And some who seemed to be doing good at first are suddenly getting their hotspot outbreaks at later points.
        garmaine 6y ago
        Any nation is effectively an island if they close their borders.
        timeeater 6y ago
        So you are saying Trump should have closed the borders, a proposal he was heavily attacked for? Anyway, it is more difficult for non-island countries and bigger countries with more global ties.
        zimpenfish 6y ago
        > Trump should have closed the borders, a proposal he was heavily attacked for? A temporary closure in the face of a pandemic is somewhat different than closing them based on his rather colourful view of immigrants.

hervature 6y ago

Where was the bioerror? Unless you believe COVID-19 came from a lab, then Pinker won.

garmaine 6y ago
The bioerror was in letting it spread.
- hervature 6y ago
  By that definition, Tuberculosis which kills 1.5 million every year. Doesn't quite satisfy the bet by itself but a few lopsided months could easily be 1 million in a 6 month period. Regardless, I don't think the lack of disease prevention was the intent of bioerror. The article says that bioerror is supposed to have the same outcomes as bioterror but I believe the implication is that it is also caused by a single human or organization.
- grupthink 6y ago
  Rees's argument specifically mentions that it must be an error relating to biotechnology (possibly caused by "wierdos [sic] with the mindset of the people who now design computer viruses"). There is no proof that the coronavirus was created or unleashed intentionally or accidentally.
  - spekcular 6y ago
    I misread the terms of the bet. So Pinker won, even with hindsight!
    - imtringued 6y ago
      I feel like it's a wash. Sure we have a million causalities but is it really a bioerror? The problem is that the definition of bioerror is not in the bet itself. I personally think this bet should either be invalid, someone should flip a coin or the one who submitted the bet should pay because he can always word the bet in a way that favors himself. If bioerror is kept ambiguous then he would win through redefining the terms of the bet by a later date.
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  Well said, and I appreciate the irony. For many years to come we will look back — in bewilderment — at the political decision to pursue herd immunity. This certainly wasn’t the kind of focused, individual “bioerror” to which the bet referred, but an error (and one of many) it surely was.
  - timeeater 6y ago
    No, we will look back in bewilderment on how the whole world could have become gripped by a panic. Looking back, we will be able to look at excess deaths, not alarmist predictions.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      We have a lot of excess death data already and it definitely doesn't indicate that we've overreacted.
      - timeeater 6y ago
        It's surprisingly difficult to find data for previous years. I think we need a bigger picture, including the data for 2021 (when it has passed). I found one CDC number of 12% excess deaths in the US this year. It's not obvious if that is an extreme event or not. I know for some other countries there were also big events in the past decade, but before 2017. The nature of averages is that some years will below them and some years will above them. Here is one criticism but I don't know if it has merit, I only found it by googling for data of older years and I don't have the time to dig into it right now. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/covid_problems_cdcs_method_of_estimating_expected_deaths_and_excess_deaths_is_misleading.html https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/covid_probl...
        hef19898 6y ago
        It is easy enough, and a 12% increase in anything YoY is significant enough to wrry about. That number is, my I remind you, with all the measures and lockdowns put in place. And picking some random link of a random google search confirming your opinion without having read it s propably the best example of confirmation bias I have seen in quite a while.
- timeeater 6y ago
  Bullshit, it was about a biotech error, a menace created in the lab. Also you need citations for you claim that it would have been possible to stop the spread.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    > Also you need citations for you claim that it would have been possible to stop the spread. There's plenty of countries who stopped the spread early on. With a concerted, worldwide, coherent effort, we could have done much better and, likely, have stopped the spread months ago. Unfortunately, this all breaks down in the face of rogue states like the US.
    - timeeater 6y ago
      There are only some islands who are in the position to effectively restrict travel, and totalitarian states whose numbers can't be trusted. Infection rates vary by countries, but a lot of it is driven by hotspot outbreaks . And some who seemed to be doing good at first are suddenly getting their hotspot outbreaks at later points.
      - garmaine 6y ago
        Any nation is effectively an island if they close their borders.
        timeeater 6y ago
        So you are saying Trump should have closed the borders, a proposal he was heavily attacked for? Anyway, it is more difficult for non-island countries and bigger countries with more global ties.
        zimpenfish 6y ago
        > Trump should have closed the borders, a proposal he was heavily attacked for? A temporary closure in the face of a pandemic is somewhat different than closing them based on his rather colourful view of immigrants.