OK let's get this on record. What percentage chance would you assign to a lab leak? Because there are a lot of credible people I'm reading from and talking to that consider it reasonably likely (at least 50%).https://twitter.com/GidMK/status/1397807872033976323 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @NateSilver538
Not impossible but less than 1% for a lab leak of a natural isolate. Logs below that for an engineered virus.
127 replies 185 retweets 2,379 likes -
Replying to @florian_krammer @NateSilver538
We need to assess possibility of lab leak not in isolation, based purely on scientific likelihood, but also in context of what we know: the admittedly circumstantial facts that emerge.This is no longer a purely scientific judgement but a security assessment based on entire mosaic
61 replies 75 retweets 722 likes -
The problem is that no new circumstantial facts have actually emerged to support laboratory origin.
35 replies 11 retweets 299 likes -
Replying to @angie_rasmussen @ScottGottliebMD and
Bayes theorem applies. The longer we go without identifying a natural source the more probability shifts to lab.
36 replies 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @jgordonshare @angie_rasmussen and
You clearly don’t understand Bayes theorem.
1 reply 0 retweets 81 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @jgordonshare and
And this guy doesn't. Right? But you do. Right?https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/new-study-by-dr-steven-quay-concludes-that-sars-cov-2-came-from-a-laboratory/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
