7 ms·

If Reese doesn't get to collect $400 then this bet is an academic wankathon. Ignoring clear global threats, gutting the programs that exist to respond to those

If Reese doesn't get to collect $400 then this bet is an academic wankathon. Ignoring clear global threats, gutting the programs that exist to respond to those threats, and piping all comm through private algos that (inadvertently) degrade basic practices of self-preservation is functionally equivalent to whatever movie plot these two thought they were betting on coming true. Going forward-- dealing seriously with all three of these problems must decrease the risk of whatever movie plot these two thought they were betting on coming true.

dwaltrip 6y ago
Unless I misread, the bet has nothing to do with natural pandemics or how we prepare to respond to them.
- voiper1 6y ago
  The bet _specifically_ excludes how we prepare: "I assume a mere lack of preparedness doesn't count"
KMag 6y ago
Reese's definition of bioerror appears to be confined to accidental leak of a lab/home lab grown pathogen. I remain unconvinced of the allegations that SARS-CoV2 leaked from a lab. The first sentence of Reese's position is "Biotechnology is plainly advancing rapidly, and by 2020 there will be thousands-even millions-of people with the capability to cause a catastrophic biological disaster." He also specifically states that a bioerror "rises from inadvertance", a.k.a. negligence.
- tristanj 6y ago
  Then what is your most likely explanation of the origin of SARS-CoV-2?
  - KMag 6y ago
    The most likely explanation is that one of the many widespread contacts between wild animals and humans in the area, likely at a wet market where wild animals were being sold as food, resulted in the virus jumping to humans. SARS-CoV2 makes a poor bioweapon. You'd want something with a higher fatality (or severe morbidity) rate, both for effectiveness and also to limit it's geographic impact to the target country. If it's not an engineered virus, the lab isn't a smoking gun. We have identified a very similar virus where bats are the reservoir species, and have identified a couple of very plausible routes by which it jumped to an intermediate wild animal that was transported to Wuhan for human consumption. If it's a wild virus, a lab escape seems less likely than the bushmeat hypothesis. Both HIV and genital herpes are believed to have jumped to humans due to humans/homonids eating bushmeat. It's known to be a very dangerous thing to do, and it's known to be somewhat widespread in Wuhan. Another possibility is that it is a virus engineered for research instead of direct use as a bioweapon, and it escaped. It's close enough to the wild bat virus that it's not obvious any engineering has been done. In any case, we have a very simple and likely explanation that matches the official story. It's comforting to believe we're in control and that simply being more stringent about lab safety will prevent this in the future. It's also politically convenient to blame foreigners (a favorite tactic of politicians everywhere for every occasion). Those two factors are why the lab escape rumours are so persistent. The truth is that (1) we keep having dangerous contact with wild animals and farm animals and we will not have control until we cut down on these practices and (2) U.S. officials are largely to blame for the sad state of things in the U.S. Yes, the Chinese authorities should have been more open from the beginning and botched the opportunity to snuff it out early, but there are plenty of countries doing much better than the U.S.
    - tristanj 6y ago
      I find the hypothesis that the virus originated from contact between wild animals and humans in the area unsatisfactory, given that: * The most genetically similar zoonotic virus to SARS-CoV-2 was found in Horseshoe Bats, in a cave in Yunnan China, 1200km away from Wuhan. * This species of bat isn't even found within 150km of Wuhan China * Bats are not commonly sold at wet markets. Furthermore, bats are not commonly eaten in China. * There’s no evidence that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where the first cluster of cases was discovered, ever sold bats. * The Pangolin as an intermediate host theory, which you suggested, has been invalidated https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/ * The first known case of SARS-CoV-2, found in a 55-year old man in November 2019, had no ties to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coro... * 13 of the 41 first known cases also had no link to the marketplace https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Chinese authorities have tried very hard to cover up the origin of the outbreak. They have refused to publish the travel history or close contacts of the 55-year old first known patient. Furthermore, they have issued a gag order to all doctors about discussing the early stages of the outbreak https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/11/9833532bb925-chinas-authorities-issue-gag-order-about-virus-to-doctors-in-wuhan.html https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/11/9833532bb925-chin... Given the above, and how I have little faith the WHO will independently investigate the origins of the virus, it's very likely there will never be a concrete answer to how SARS-CoV-2 first spread to humans.
- RachelF 6y ago
  I guess it is only a co-incidence then, that Wuhan is the only city in China with a level 4 bio-security lab and Bio weapons research. Their lab had an accident in October 2019: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6884792-MACE-E-PAI-COVID-19-ANALYSIS-Redacted.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6884792-MACE-E-PAI-C...
  - ImaCake 6y ago
    How do you think a level 4 biosecurity lab ends up in a place like Wuhan? That lab is there because Wuhan happens to be a hotspot for dangerous novel tropical diseases. Regardless of the direction of causality for COVID, the original reason the lab was put there was to look for things like COVID. Your implied argument is bad. Link bombing with some random powerpoint may support direction of causality between the lab and COVID, but it does nothing to support your insuation of the lab being there in the first place.
bobsmooth 6y ago
All money except the $50 filing fee goes to the winner's charity of choice. But I disagree, complacency or incompetence over a long period of time is not the same as a deliberate attack or a single error. If the coronavirus did originate in a lab, then Reese wins.
- imtringued 6y ago
  This makes me wonder. The ability to explore the origins of COVID can easily outlast its impact. If someone finds evidence of a bioterror attack then his bet might turn out to be true well after 2020 but since there was no date given for this special case one would assume that it should be widely known by the end of 2020.
  - bobsmooth 6y ago
    The bet is specifically on the date of the attack/bioerror. I don't think the LNF has procedures in place for a reversed decision.
- michaelt 6y ago
  > All money except the $50 filing fee goes to the winner's charity of choice. And better yet, they've both chosen the same charity.
imtringued 6y ago
> If Reese doesn't get to collect $400 then this bet is an academic wankathon. You know, there is a conflict of interest. It was Reese that created the academic wankathon in the first place. The bet is a sure win if he had predicted 1 million casualties through a virus. However that's not what he did. He added extra restrictions that decrease the probability of his bet turning out to be true. The challenger is obviously taking those restrictions into account and thereby estimates that it is easier for the challenger to win. If you now go and change the terms so that the restrictions are gone then if the predictor wins he has merely won through deception. A shallow victory that undermines longbets as a platform.

dwaltrip 6y ago

Unless I misread, the bet has nothing to do with natural pandemics or how we prepare to respond to them.

voiper1 6y ago
The bet _specifically_ excludes how we prepare: "I assume a mere lack of preparedness doesn't count"

KMag 6y ago

Reese's definition of bioerror appears to be confined to accidental leak of a lab/home lab grown pathogen. I remain unconvinced of the allegations that SARS-CoV2 leaked from a lab. The first sentence of Reese's position is "Biotechnology is plainly advancing rapidly, and by 2020 there will be thousands-even millions-of people with the capability to cause a catastrophic biological disaster." He also specifically states that a bioerror "rises from inadvertance", a.k.a. negligence.

tristanj 6y ago
Then what is your most likely explanation of the origin of SARS-CoV-2?
- KMag 6y ago
  The most likely explanation is that one of the many widespread contacts between wild animals and humans in the area, likely at a wet market where wild animals were being sold as food, resulted in the virus jumping to humans. SARS-CoV2 makes a poor bioweapon. You'd want something with a higher fatality (or severe morbidity) rate, both for effectiveness and also to limit it's geographic impact to the target country. If it's not an engineered virus, the lab isn't a smoking gun. We have identified a very similar virus where bats are the reservoir species, and have identified a couple of very plausible routes by which it jumped to an intermediate wild animal that was transported to Wuhan for human consumption. If it's a wild virus, a lab escape seems less likely than the bushmeat hypothesis. Both HIV and genital herpes are believed to have jumped to humans due to humans/homonids eating bushmeat. It's known to be a very dangerous thing to do, and it's known to be somewhat widespread in Wuhan. Another possibility is that it is a virus engineered for research instead of direct use as a bioweapon, and it escaped. It's close enough to the wild bat virus that it's not obvious any engineering has been done. In any case, we have a very simple and likely explanation that matches the official story. It's comforting to believe we're in control and that simply being more stringent about lab safety will prevent this in the future. It's also politically convenient to blame foreigners (a favorite tactic of politicians everywhere for every occasion). Those two factors are why the lab escape rumours are so persistent. The truth is that (1) we keep having dangerous contact with wild animals and farm animals and we will not have control until we cut down on these practices and (2) U.S. officials are largely to blame for the sad state of things in the U.S. Yes, the Chinese authorities should have been more open from the beginning and botched the opportunity to snuff it out early, but there are plenty of countries doing much better than the U.S.
  - tristanj 6y ago
    I find the hypothesis that the virus originated from contact between wild animals and humans in the area unsatisfactory, given that: * The most genetically similar zoonotic virus to SARS-CoV-2 was found in Horseshoe Bats, in a cave in Yunnan China, 1200km away from Wuhan. * This species of bat isn't even found within 150km of Wuhan China * Bats are not commonly sold at wet markets. Furthermore, bats are not commonly eaten in China. * There’s no evidence that the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where the first cluster of cases was discovered, ever sold bats. * The Pangolin as an intermediate host theory, which you suggested, has been invalidated https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7405773/ * The first known case of SARS-CoV-2, found in a 55-year old man in November 2019, had no ties to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coronavirus-chinas-first-confirmed-covid-19-case-traced-back https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3074991/coro... * 13 of the 41 first known cases also had no link to the marketplace https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Chinese authorities have tried very hard to cover up the origin of the outbreak. They have refused to publish the travel history or close contacts of the 55-year old first known patient. Furthermore, they have issued a gag order to all doctors about discussing the early stages of the outbreak https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/11/9833532bb925-chinas-authorities-issue-gag-order-about-virus-to-doctors-in-wuhan.html https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/11/9833532bb925-chin... Given the above, and how I have little faith the WHO will independently investigate the origins of the virus, it's very likely there will never be a concrete answer to how SARS-CoV-2 first spread to humans.
RachelF 6y ago
I guess it is only a co-incidence then, that Wuhan is the only city in China with a level 4 bio-security lab and Bio weapons research. Their lab had an accident in October 2019: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6884792-MACE-E-PAI-COVID-19-ANALYSIS-Redacted.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6884792-MACE-E-PAI-C...
- ImaCake 6y ago
  How do you think a level 4 biosecurity lab ends up in a place like Wuhan? That lab is there because Wuhan happens to be a hotspot for dangerous novel tropical diseases. Regardless of the direction of causality for COVID, the original reason the lab was put there was to look for things like COVID. Your implied argument is bad. Link bombing with some random powerpoint may support direction of causality between the lab and COVID, but it does nothing to support your insuation of the lab being there in the first place.

bobsmooth 6y ago

All money except the $50 filing fee goes to the winner's charity of choice. But I disagree, complacency or incompetence over a long period of time is not the same as a deliberate attack or a single error. If the coronavirus did originate in a lab, then Reese wins.

imtringued 6y ago
This makes me wonder. The ability to explore the origins of COVID can easily outlast its impact. If someone finds evidence of a bioterror attack then his bet might turn out to be true well after 2020 but since there was no date given for this special case one would assume that it should be widely known by the end of 2020.
- bobsmooth 6y ago
  The bet is specifically on the date of the attack/bioerror. I don't think the LNF has procedures in place for a reversed decision.
michaelt 6y ago
> All money except the $50 filing fee goes to the winner's charity of choice. And better yet, they've both chosen the same charity.

imtringued 6y ago

> If Reese doesn't get to collect $400 then this bet is an academic wankathon. You know, there is a conflict of interest. It was Reese that created the academic wankathon in the first place. The bet is a sure win if he had predicted 1 million casualties through a virus. However that's not what he did. He added extra restrictions that decrease the probability of his bet turning out to be true. The challenger is obviously taking those restrictions into account and thereby estimates that it is easier for the challenger to win. If you now go and change the terms so that the restrictions are gone then if the predictor wins he has merely won through deception. A shallow victory that undermines longbets as a platform.