I enjoyed reading this and think it makes some important points. There's an important way in which I mostly agree with it. However, in some important ways it's

I enjoyed reading this and think it makes some important points. There's an important way in which I mostly agree with it. However, in some important ways it's missing the point, and illustrates the importance of utility and not just probability. Maybe discovering the truth about whether COVID was or was not a lab leak shouldn't shift your posterior of it occurring again. But given the costs of the outcome, the per-unit-probability weight of that shift is arguably pretty big. How much you should learn from something probably depends on the benefits and costs of everything? That's a very non-probabilistic judgment. I generally agree with the idea that there's a level at which whether or not it was a lab leak probably doesn't matter at all: it already tragically happened, it should maybe be a wake up call to the plausibility of it even if it wasn't what happened this time, there are other problems with the lab leak discussion, and so forth. But at another level it very much does matter: there's arguably a moral responsibility possibily attached to it, and a slight change in probabilities might have enormous utility costs, if the outcomes are bad enough (like basically threatening the world order).