4 ms·

> Where did the 700k number come from? It came from the first article that I linked, by a medical doctor and professor of epidemiology. From that article: > O

> Where did the 700k number come from? It came from the first article that I linked, by a medical doctor and professor of epidemiology. From that article: > Over the ensuing years, after its emergence in 1977, the virus went on to infect a significant portion of the worldwide population, killing roughly 700,000 people. I'm not aware of any controversy over that number. It seems like people don't quite believe it, as if it's impossible that researchers would kill 700k people with no consequence, so it must be wrong or fake somehow. They're just as dead as from any other cause though, and the failed challenge trial (or whatever it was) caused the deaths. And no one cares, and I don't really understand why. It may partially be the delayed discovery, since research-related origin was denied at the time. (Quite familiarly, the WHO wrote in 1978 that "laboratory contamination can be excluded because the laboratories concerned either had never kept H1N1 virus or had not worked with it for a long time".) It may also be the long distance between the initial cause and the death, in the same way as for pollution, climate change, etc. > Even if you insisted on the 1977 virus being an instance of a lab escape causing a pandemic, the prior probability of that kind of event would stay zero, maybe with a desultory and lonely 1 after three or four decimal zeroes. So, zero. The flu vaccine was invented about 80 years ago, so a pandemic arising from it couldn't have occurred before that. We obviously haven't had 10,000 to 100,000 pandemics since then. The definition is loose, but counting introductions of pathogens into humans with a combination of novelty and mortality sufficient to get scientific attention over that period, I get maybe a couple dozen. If we count only pandemics with deaths comparable to the 1977 flu's 700k then it's fewer; but I think it makes sense to include SARS-1, MERS, etc. If I had to guess knowing only that such a novel pathogen had just been introduced, I'd thus bet with p ~ 5% that it was a research accident. If I had to bet knowing only that a novel pathogen had been introduced sometime in the past million years, then my estimate would of course be lower; but I don't see how that's relevant here. For SARS-CoV-2 I believe additional evidence significantly increases the probability, as discussed in other comments.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
>> It came from the first article that I linked, by a medical doctor and professor of epidemiology. From that article: >>> Over the ensuing years, after its emergence in 1977, the virus went on to infect a significant portion of the worldwide population, killing roughly 700,000 people. That estimate is not referenced in the paper you link. I looked for a different source estimating the number of deaths. I found this article [1] that reports an earlier estimate of a mortality rate of less than 5/100,000. "Mortality rate" is taken over the total of a population (not infections). With a mortality rate of less than 5/100,000, for the virus to kill 700,000 people, as in the claim in the article you link, it would have to circulate in a population of 14,000,000,000 (see rule of three). That's not possible. >> If I had to guess knowing only that such a novel pathogen had just been introduced, I'd thus bet with p ~ 5% that it was a research accident. Does that mean you believe every recent pandemic has a ~5% chance to be a "research accident"? SARS, MERS, HIV, Ebola, mpox, Zika, etc, all had a ~5% chance to be research accidents or is Covid-19 special? What happens to this 5% number as we see more pandemics? Does it go up or down? Can you say? ______________ [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4542197/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4542197/ >> In 1977, an H1N1 influenza virus appeared and circled the globe. Colloquially referred to as the “Russian flu,” as the USSR was the first to report the outbreak to the World Health Organization (WHO), the 1977 strain was actually isolated in Tientsin, Liaoning, and Jilin, China, almost simultaneously in May of that year (1). It was atypically mild for a new epidemic strain; the influenza mortality rate (IMR) of the 1977 flu was calculated to be <5 out of 100,000, less than typical seasonal influenza infections (IMR of 6/100,000 people) (2). In addition, the 1977 strain appeared to affect only those 26 years of age and younger (3). These odd characteristics turned out to have a simple scientific explanation: the virus was not novel. The 1977 strain was virtually identical to an H1N1 influenza strain that was prevalent in the 1950s but had since dropped out of circulation (4).
- tripletao 2y ago
  > That estimate is not referenced in the paper you link. I linked two papers, and that quote appears in the first. Perhaps you were looking at the second? Here's the link again, with the text that I quoted highlighted: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/936217#:~:text=Over%20the%20ensuing%20years%2C%20after%20its%20emergence%20in%201977%2C%20the%20virus%20went%20on%20to%20infect%20a%20significant%20portion%20of%20the%20worldwide%20population%2C%20killing%20roughly%20700%2C000%20people https://muse.jhu.edu/article/936217#:~:text=Over%20the%20ens... Influenza statistics are noisy, since most patients are never tested. We could compare the methodologies of those estimates, and try to decide which is better; but I don't think that's a productive use of our time, unless you think 700k deaths are worthy of concern but 200k deaths (or whatever the right number would be) are not. > Does that mean you believe every recent pandemic has a ~5% chance to be a "research accident"? SARS, MERS, HIV, Ebola, mpox, Zika, etc, all had a ~5% chance to be research accidents or is Covid-19 special? If I knew nothing else about the pandemic, I'd bet with p ~ 5% that it was research-origin--that's my prior, knowing only that it just emerged. For real, I of course know more. For e.g. MERS, the proximal animal host was found, and genomic evidence shows repeated spillover; so that additional evidence makes me effectively certain it was natural (p ~ 0%). For the 1977 flu, I'm very confident it was unnatural (p ~ 99%). Those average to something close to 5%. If we get strong confirmation that SARS-CoV-2 (or any other new pandemic) arose unnaturally, then my prior would go up. If we get many more natural pandemics without any unnatural ones, then my prior would go down. I would also incorporate other information. For example, if many more scientists undertake high-risk research on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, then my prior would go up. If such projects are restricted and become less common, then my prior would go down. I think that's fairly normal reasoning?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago

>> It came from the first article that I linked, by a medical doctor and professor of epidemiology. From that article: >>> Over the ensuing years, after its emergence in 1977, the virus went on to infect a significant portion of the worldwide population, killing roughly 700,000 people. That estimate is not referenced in the paper you link. I looked for a different source estimating the number of deaths. I found this article [1] that reports an earlier estimate of a mortality rate of less than 5/100,000. "Mortality rate" is taken over the total of a population (not infections). With a mortality rate of less than 5/100,000, for the virus to kill 700,000 people, as in the claim in the article you link, it would have to circulate in a population of 14,000,000,000 (see rule of three). That's not possible. >> If I had to guess knowing only that such a novel pathogen had just been introduced, I'd thus bet with p ~ 5% that it was a research accident. Does that mean you believe every recent pandemic has a ~5% chance to be a "research accident"? SARS, MERS, HIV, Ebola, mpox, Zika, etc, all had a ~5% chance to be research accidents or is Covid-19 special? What happens to this 5% number as we see more pandemics? Does it go up or down? Can you say? ______________ [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4542197/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4542197/ >> In 1977, an H1N1 influenza virus appeared and circled the globe. Colloquially referred to as the “Russian flu,” as the USSR was the first to report the outbreak to the World Health Organization (WHO), the 1977 strain was actually isolated in Tientsin, Liaoning, and Jilin, China, almost simultaneously in May of that year (1). It was atypically mild for a new epidemic strain; the influenza mortality rate (IMR) of the 1977 flu was calculated to be <5 out of 100,000, less than typical seasonal influenza infections (IMR of 6/100,000 people) (2). In addition, the 1977 strain appeared to affect only those 26 years of age and younger (3). These odd characteristics turned out to have a simple scientific explanation: the virus was not novel. The 1977 strain was virtually identical to an H1N1 influenza strain that was prevalent in the 1950s but had since dropped out of circulation (4).

tripletao 2y ago
> That estimate is not referenced in the paper you link. I linked two papers, and that quote appears in the first. Perhaps you were looking at the second? Here's the link again, with the text that I quoted highlighted: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/936217#:~:text=Over%20the%20ensuing%20years%2C%20after%20its%20emergence%20in%201977%2C%20the%20virus%20went%20on%20to%20infect%20a%20significant%20portion%20of%20the%20worldwide%20population%2C%20killing%20roughly%20700%2C000%20people https://muse.jhu.edu/article/936217#:~:text=Over%20the%20ens... Influenza statistics are noisy, since most patients are never tested. We could compare the methodologies of those estimates, and try to decide which is better; but I don't think that's a productive use of our time, unless you think 700k deaths are worthy of concern but 200k deaths (or whatever the right number would be) are not. > Does that mean you believe every recent pandemic has a ~5% chance to be a "research accident"? SARS, MERS, HIV, Ebola, mpox, Zika, etc, all had a ~5% chance to be research accidents or is Covid-19 special? If I knew nothing else about the pandemic, I'd bet with p ~ 5% that it was research-origin--that's my prior, knowing only that it just emerged. For real, I of course know more. For e.g. MERS, the proximal animal host was found, and genomic evidence shows repeated spillover; so that additional evidence makes me effectively certain it was natural (p ~ 0%). For the 1977 flu, I'm very confident it was unnatural (p ~ 99%). Those average to something close to 5%. If we get strong confirmation that SARS-CoV-2 (or any other new pandemic) arose unnaturally, then my prior would go up. If we get many more natural pandemics without any unnatural ones, then my prior would go down. I would also incorporate other information. For example, if many more scientists undertake high-risk research on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, then my prior would go up. If such projects are restricted and become less common, then my prior would go down. I think that's fairly normal reasoning?