4 ms·

I'm reading it as shorthand for, "The prior probability of a lab escape is low, and we didn't see much evidence for it in this particular case, therefore we con

I'm reading it as shorthand for, "The prior probability of a lab escape is low, and we didn't see much evidence for it in this particular case, therefore we conclude that this instance being a lab escape is low", which is a fine argument.

throwaway4good 5y ago
Yes. It seems that proponents of the lab leak theory wants to turn the burden of proof upside down: I am claiming conspiracy starting with Anthony Fauci and ending up in a Chinese lab. It is up to you to provide hard evidence on why it is not so. Sure you can do that as in freedom of thought and speech. But honestly; this is not really a constructive way to go about things.
- kspacewalk2 5y ago
  There is nothing to turn upside down. The burden of proof is equal for both theories.
  - throwaway4good 5y ago
    The null hypothesis is "we don't know".
  - exegete 5y ago
    The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be in my opinion.
    - throwaway4good 5y ago
      Exactly. There is an investegative group from the WHO interviewing the Wuhan lab people and looking at various form of documentation. The lab leak proponents claim that they are all lying and all the documents are fraudulent. The lab leak proponents have the burden of proof and IMHO kinda should shut up until they can carry that burden.
      - neonological 5y ago
        Did you read the article. The investigative group is compromised. The doctors who were part of the group have strong connections and even experiments running in the same lab.
      - throwaway4good 5y ago
        Oh - I forgot - the investigation is comprimised ... Insanity!
        guesst 5y ago
        I agree that compromised isn't a smart word to use about this, but even if you think all these questions have been settled, I'm surprised you don't agree that it is bad optics to have the investigator to be the funder of the research being investigated, and even worse when he says things like: well, we asked them and they said no, so that's that. The conflict of interest couldn't be more obvious. It's the media's job to investigate conflicts of interest, so the fact that they didn't looked into that, and that they took Daszak's original so-called debunking at face value, is bad optics on another level. It has left a credibility vacuum, so it's unsurprising that articles like the current one are coming in from the margins.
    - tomjen3 5y ago
      What is least likely? A group of scientists in a quasy communist country do a shit job of safety and end up endangering the worlds population or that a virus that coexists with Bats, somehow and for no (direct) evolutionary benefit, becomes able to infect humans?
      - jounker 5y ago
        Based on what we know about the history and ecology of pathogens, the latter is far more likely. I say this as someone with training in the biological sciences.
      - SiempreViernes 5y ago
        Uh, infecting a new type of organism is a pretty big evolutionary benefit though? Saying there is no benefit is like saying there is no benefit for people people who switch jobs just so they get paid more.
        tomjen3 5y ago
        It is, on the whole, but not immediately. It is kinda like the idea that while having eyes is a huge evolutionary benefit, having just part of the eye confers none. Or like guessing a password by random chance. If you get some immediate feedback by being partially right then it is pretty easy, but if you only know if the password is right or wrong, then the odds of guessing the password rounds to zero.
FabHK 5y ago
Sure, > The prior probability of a lab escape is low but the prior probability of "a pandemic from natural causes envelops the world" is also low, say below 1% a year. But now, given that "a pandemic does envelop the world", the posterior probability of lab escape and natural cause of course rises dramatically... and then saying "we didn't see much evidence for it" on a superficial tour organised by those responsible for the lab does not strike me as a very powerful rebuttal. It's akin to "the prior probability of labour camps is low", and "on our tour of North Korea (accompanied by several North Korean tour guides showing us just those places they wanted to show us when they wanted to show us) we didn't see any labour camps, therefore we conclude that the probability of labour camps in North Korea is low". While we're invoking statistics: Take the null H_0 = "the virus emerged naturally in any large Chinese city with > 1m inhabitants". In 2017, there were 102 of those. Thus, the probability under H_0 that the virus emerged in the one city in China with a level 4 biolab has p < 0.01.
- manwe150 5y ago
  Many low probability events happen every day, without contradicting the prior that they remain unlikely. It is akin to saying "Pliny the Younger didn't die in Pompeii overtaken by a volcano because there is so many other cities he could have died in and other causes of death." Statistically, that would have been true, up until we learned that it happened. Then the low probability ceases to matter, since it becomes an observation. Statistically, this is due to both priors rising, proportional to their original values, such that now the sum P(lab escape)+P(natural cause) == 1 and their average is a coin-toss (50-50). So without outside information, the prior statistical probability isn't low: it is exactly neutral between the options. We've also seen viruses arise in small villages. This is even more unlikely to be predictable in advance which village with p << 0.0001.
  - FabHK 5y ago
    > Statistically, this is due to both priors rising, proportional to their original values, such that now the sum P(lab escape)+P(natural cause) == 1 Exactly, that's what I was getting at - the prior for lab escape is low, but given that the pandemic happened, it the posterior for lab escape is 1 - posterior for natural. And we had about as many examples for lab escapes as for natural epidemics in the last few decades, it seems to me.
twobitshifter 5y ago
But lab escape caused pandemics are surprisingly common so that prior probability is unwarranted.

throwaway4good 5y ago

Yes. It seems that proponents of the lab leak theory wants to turn the burden of proof upside down: I am claiming conspiracy starting with Anthony Fauci and ending up in a Chinese lab. It is up to you to provide hard evidence on why it is not so. Sure you can do that as in freedom of thought and speech. But honestly; this is not really a constructive way to go about things.

kspacewalk2 5y ago
There is nothing to turn upside down. The burden of proof is equal for both theories.
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  The null hypothesis is "we don't know".
- exegete 5y ago
  The burden of proof is on the one making the claim and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be in my opinion.
  - throwaway4good 5y ago
    Exactly. There is an investegative group from the WHO interviewing the Wuhan lab people and looking at various form of documentation. The lab leak proponents claim that they are all lying and all the documents are fraudulent. The lab leak proponents have the burden of proof and IMHO kinda should shut up until they can carry that burden.
    - neonological 5y ago
      Did you read the article. The investigative group is compromised. The doctors who were part of the group have strong connections and even experiments running in the same lab.
    - throwaway4good 5y ago
      Oh - I forgot - the investigation is comprimised ... Insanity!
      - guesst 5y ago
        I agree that compromised isn't a smart word to use about this, but even if you think all these questions have been settled, I'm surprised you don't agree that it is bad optics to have the investigator to be the funder of the research being investigated, and even worse when he says things like: well, we asked them and they said no, so that's that. The conflict of interest couldn't be more obvious. It's the media's job to investigate conflicts of interest, so the fact that they didn't looked into that, and that they took Daszak's original so-called debunking at face value, is bad optics on another level. It has left a credibility vacuum, so it's unsurprising that articles like the current one are coming in from the margins.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    What is least likely? A group of scientists in a quasy communist country do a shit job of safety and end up endangering the worlds population or that a virus that coexists with Bats, somehow and for no (direct) evolutionary benefit, becomes able to infect humans?
    - jounker 5y ago
      Based on what we know about the history and ecology of pathogens, the latter is far more likely. I say this as someone with training in the biological sciences.
    - SiempreViernes 5y ago
      Uh, infecting a new type of organism is a pretty big evolutionary benefit though? Saying there is no benefit is like saying there is no benefit for people people who switch jobs just so they get paid more.
      - tomjen3 5y ago
        It is, on the whole, but not immediately. It is kinda like the idea that while having eyes is a huge evolutionary benefit, having just part of the eye confers none. Or like guessing a password by random chance. If you get some immediate feedback by being partially right then it is pretty easy, but if you only know if the password is right or wrong, then the odds of guessing the password rounds to zero.

FabHK 5y ago

Sure, > The prior probability of a lab escape is low but the prior probability of "a pandemic from natural causes envelops the world" is also low, say below 1% a year. But now, given that "a pandemic does envelop the world", the posterior probability of lab escape and natural cause of course rises dramatically... and then saying "we didn't see much evidence for it" on a superficial tour organised by those responsible for the lab does not strike me as a very powerful rebuttal. It's akin to "the prior probability of labour camps is low", and "on our tour of North Korea (accompanied by several North Korean tour guides showing us just those places they wanted to show us when they wanted to show us) we didn't see any labour camps, therefore we conclude that the probability of labour camps in North Korea is low". While we're invoking statistics: Take the null H_0 = "the virus emerged naturally in any large Chinese city with > 1m inhabitants". In 2017, there were 102 of those. Thus, the probability under H_0 that the virus emerged in the one city in China with a level 4 biolab has p < 0.01.

manwe150 5y ago
Many low probability events happen every day, without contradicting the prior that they remain unlikely. It is akin to saying "Pliny the Younger didn't die in Pompeii overtaken by a volcano because there is so many other cities he could have died in and other causes of death." Statistically, that would have been true, up until we learned that it happened. Then the low probability ceases to matter, since it becomes an observation. Statistically, this is due to both priors rising, proportional to their original values, such that now the sum P(lab escape)+P(natural cause) == 1 and their average is a coin-toss (50-50). So without outside information, the prior statistical probability isn't low: it is exactly neutral between the options. We've also seen viruses arise in small villages. This is even more unlikely to be predictable in advance which village with p << 0.0001.
- FabHK 5y ago
  > Statistically, this is due to both priors rising, proportional to their original values, such that now the sum P(lab escape)+P(natural cause) == 1 Exactly, that's what I was getting at - the prior for lab escape is low, but given that the pandemic happened, it the posterior for lab escape is 1 - posterior for natural. And we had about as many examples for lab escapes as for natural epidemics in the last few decades, it seems to me.

twobitshifter 5y ago

But lab escape caused pandemics are surprisingly common so that prior probability is unwarranted.