This was posted here previously [1]. I'm just going to repost what I said about it last time [2], since my take on it hasn't changed. The lab leak hypothesis se

This was posted here previously [1]. I'm just going to repost what I said about it last time [2], since my take on it hasn't changed. The lab leak hypothesis seems plausible, but this is a bad analysis. ----- Disclaimer: I didn't read much of the analysis you linked. I'm not a virologist, but I do have a PhD in Bayesian Statistics. As a general rule, I don't take this kind of analysis via repeated repeated repeated repeated repeated repeated repeated application of Bayes' Rule with somewhat-to-completely arbitrary probabilities at each step very seriously. At all. It's a kind of gish gallop [3] with additional window dressing purporting to wrap it all up into one easy number. From a probabilistic point of view it ignores any dependency between observed facts, which is a serious issue but not necessarily the most damning one. This particular case is even worse than usual. According to a quick Ctrl-F-aided skim of the document, the author doesn't identify a single fact that increases the probability of zoonotic origin, which is extremely suspicious. If every single available fact in a complicated issue points to the same conclusion that's probably because you are messing with your facts, not because that's how things actually are. After noticing the one-sided-ness of the Bayesian updates I rolled my eyes and closed the tab. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25965751 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25965751 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26129558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26129558 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop