2 ms·

Table 1 actually does have a reference in the text, but it doesn't seem to be helpful. I think the major point of unclear methodology is the period over which t

Table 1 actually does have a reference in the text, but it doesn't seem to be helpful. I think the major point of unclear methodology is the period over which those deaths are summed, since the lineage has continued to circulate since reintroduction: > The human H1N1 lineage caused pandemic and endemic influenza from 1918 to 1956, then disappeared entirely around 1957 only to reappear in relatively low-level pandemic form in 1977. It has continued to circulate endemically in humans up to the present time (2009). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2862331/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2862331/ Michaelis's Table 1 says "1977-1979", but 700k seems too high for that; so the table seems misleading or wrong to me. Perhaps they're actually counting deaths from descendant lineages up to present--if a terrorist reintroduced smallpox, would you not blame them for every death until it was re-eradicated, even if that took many years? That might be what Burke meant by "over the ensuing years", though in that case it should have increased since 2009. That seems more plausible to me, if anything low. It seems most likely to me that no one has calculated very rigorously, and the reviewers did back-of-the-napkin calculations similar to those I've just done and decided it was close enough, within the usual uncertainty (rigorous estimates in countries with good statistics are often ranges over 5:1 or more). I agree their failure to explain their methodology is bad, and I won't provide numbers in future without this context. The calculation you provided earlier seems to be only for the period immediately around 1977, not including descendant lineages in subsequent years. I'd guess that's the reason for the apparent inconsistency, since almost all the death comes later. So after all this, do you at least agree that (a) many people died, (b) the research accident caused those deaths, and (c) that's bad? I absolutely agree it's (almost surely) not 700.000k; but can you agree it's not zero? > Humans predict the future? That sounds like magic. Are you sure that's true? Are we talking about prior probabilities or palmistry? I assume you don't think weather forecasters are magicians? Or almost any human activity involves aspects of prediction--I cross the street because I predict that the barking pit bull might attack me, or I choose an item from the restaurant menu that I predict I'll enjoy eating. So I don't see what's abnormal here. I don't think this dorm-room epistemology serves much purpose beyond distracting from the practical and serious topic at hand. > Note that it doesn't make sense for a prior to be "your prior" or "my prior". I think the possessive is just an acknowledgement that the right answer is disputable, and reasonable people may end up with different numbers. I'd tend to agree there's an EA-adjacent tendency towards misleading quantification, but the concept of a prior here seems fine to me. > Not at all. Besides which the thread started when you used the term "prior probability" without understanding what it means. So are you saying the 1977 flu doesn't infect humans, or that it didn't leak from a lab? I'm not sure what you mean here. I also think you've confused me with user rich_sasha, since I didn't mention prior probability until you did.

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
Yes, I confused you with rich_sasha, that's right. My aplogies. As you say 700k people over two years is an impossibly high number so we can disregard this number and any other number that someone makes up just because they want to make a point. That's not the way to make a point with numbers. >> So after all this, do you at least agree that (a) many people died, (b) the research accident caused those deaths, and (c) that's bad? Not at all. Note that my initial point, quoting from my initial comment, was that "every single pandemic and disease that has ever infected humans did not leak from a lab and instead evolved in nature, usually in animals". The 1977 flu did not start in a lab but instead jumped from animals to humans, just like any other disease that has ever bothered us. This happened in the 1950's. In the 1970's an earlier strain of the virus re-emerged but we don't know where it came from and it did not cause a pandemic. The Covid-19 virus instead is said to have first come from a lab, and some people even think it was a human-made virus, possibly as a result of gain-of-function research. Nothing to do with the 1977 flu. Have you looked for the Udacity course I recommended, on probabilities? It is really good and it will help you a lot.
- tripletao 2y ago
  > As you say 700k people over two years is an impossibly high number so we can disregard this number I agree it wasn't over two years. I never said it was over two years, though, and neither did Burke. Michaelis might imply that, and I criticized them for that. Do you not think it's plausible that all the deaths tracing back to that reintroduction sum to 700k? It's a big chunk of global flu mortality over almost fifty years now. If you think 700k is too high, what's a better estimate? I asked before if you could agree that it was greater than zero, and you didn't answer. If you're still unwilling to, can you at least explain why not? Perhaps it's misleading to attribute the deaths to the "1977 flu" when our count isn't limited to that one year. I don't think it's that unusual, though. We often say ~7M people died from COVID-19, even though very few of those were in 2019. In any case, I believe the period in question should be clear now. > The 1977 flu did not start in a lab but instead jumped from animals to humans, just like any other disease that has ever bothered us. You've changed your terminology here, from "leaked" to "started". There's no question that the 1977 flu, SARS-CoV-2, or any other virus traces back to nature--the technology doesn't yet exist to create a functioning viral genome de novo. All laboratory viruses are derived from natural viruses, whether in simple ways (like freezing for twenty years) or complex ones (like the genetic engineering proposed in DEFUSE). All viruses trace back to natural evolution. The question is whether their path to humans involved a trip through a lab, and for the 1977 flu the answer seems to be yes. Do you disagree? Even the paper you linked yourself--written by a longtime proponent of high-risk virological research--opens with "The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event". > and it did not cause a pandemic. Can you explain why you don't think it was a pandemic? Even if you're (bizarrely) unwilling to admit that anyone died, pandemics are defined in terms of cases or infections, not deaths. There's no question that the 1977 flu spread unusually quickly to infect a large fraction of the world. It's widely referred to as a pandemic. What do you know that all these professors don't? > Have you looked for the Udacity course I recommended, on probabilities? It is really good and it will help you a lot. It sounds like a good course and I might take a look. My own professors did give me passing grades, though? I don't think introductory statistics is the major point of disagreement here.

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago

Yes, I confused you with rich_sasha, that's right. My aplogies. As you say 700k people over two years is an impossibly high number so we can disregard this number and any other number that someone makes up just because they want to make a point. That's not the way to make a point with numbers. >> So after all this, do you at least agree that (a) many people died, (b) the research accident caused those deaths, and (c) that's bad? Not at all. Note that my initial point, quoting from my initial comment, was that "every single pandemic and disease that has ever infected humans did not leak from a lab and instead evolved in nature, usually in animals". The 1977 flu did not start in a lab but instead jumped from animals to humans, just like any other disease that has ever bothered us. This happened in the 1950's. In the 1970's an earlier strain of the virus re-emerged but we don't know where it came from and it did not cause a pandemic. The Covid-19 virus instead is said to have first come from a lab, and some people even think it was a human-made virus, possibly as a result of gain-of-function research. Nothing to do with the 1977 flu. Have you looked for the Udacity course I recommended, on probabilities? It is really good and it will help you a lot.

tripletao 2y ago
> As you say 700k people over two years is an impossibly high number so we can disregard this number I agree it wasn't over two years. I never said it was over two years, though, and neither did Burke. Michaelis might imply that, and I criticized them for that. Do you not think it's plausible that all the deaths tracing back to that reintroduction sum to 700k? It's a big chunk of global flu mortality over almost fifty years now. If you think 700k is too high, what's a better estimate? I asked before if you could agree that it was greater than zero, and you didn't answer. If you're still unwilling to, can you at least explain why not? Perhaps it's misleading to attribute the deaths to the "1977 flu" when our count isn't limited to that one year. I don't think it's that unusual, though. We often say ~7M people died from COVID-19, even though very few of those were in 2019. In any case, I believe the period in question should be clear now. > The 1977 flu did not start in a lab but instead jumped from animals to humans, just like any other disease that has ever bothered us. You've changed your terminology here, from "leaked" to "started". There's no question that the 1977 flu, SARS-CoV-2, or any other virus traces back to nature--the technology doesn't yet exist to create a functioning viral genome de novo. All laboratory viruses are derived from natural viruses, whether in simple ways (like freezing for twenty years) or complex ones (like the genetic engineering proposed in DEFUSE). All viruses trace back to natural evolution. The question is whether their path to humans involved a trip through a lab, and for the 1977 flu the answer seems to be yes. Do you disagree? Even the paper you linked yourself--written by a longtime proponent of high-risk virological research--opens with "The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event". > and it did not cause a pandemic. Can you explain why you don't think it was a pandemic? Even if you're (bizarrely) unwilling to admit that anyone died, pandemics are defined in terms of cases or infections, not deaths. There's no question that the 1977 flu spread unusually quickly to infect a large fraction of the world. It's widely referred to as a pandemic. What do you know that all these professors don't? > Have you looked for the Udacity course I recommended, on probabilities? It is really good and it will help you a lot. It sounds like a good course and I might take a look. My own professors did give me passing grades, though? I don't think introductory statistics is the major point of disagreement here.