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
-
-
I feel like we're saying "odds of winning the lottery are very low" (true) to assess the causal path of a lottery winner (after it happened). Why did that person win this (terrible) lottery? Yes complex question but cannot be answered by examining the odds in a blank slate world.
10 replies 7 retweets 191 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ScottGottliebMD and
This analogy is not apt. No one's arguing "the odds of a pandemic are low". We know how this "lottery" is usually won, and it's not from a lab. You're talking about the likelihood of *a rare way of winning the lottery*, not just the rarity *of* winning the lottery.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @drethescientist @ScottGottliebMD and
Okay, good point. Can state it like that too. (Analogies and their limits). The point is priors and posteriors should not get assessed the same way. Lotteries are won rarely, and the path is usually buying a ticket. This person who won the lottery may have found it on the street.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @drethescientist and
How do we assess the latter after the person did win? "The lottery is won very very rarely, and when it is won, it is by people who purchase tickets" is a reasonable point, but does not let us figure out if *this* winner found it on the street (possible but rare in the past).
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ScottGottliebMD and
I think that is a much better analogy. But everyone seems to want to figure this out on Twitter, when in reality all we can do is wait for actual scientific evidence. Assessing the odds either way has no impact on figuring out the actual answer
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drethescientist @ScottGottliebMD and
In some ways, I agree. In other ways, at least understanding the question correctly could help make this saner? (And could also help provide a better framework for discussing the evidentiary framework one would need to bring to a question like this, rather than what we're doing).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @ScottGottliebMD and
Better understanding is great. I just think there's some demonization of experts because people don't distinguish between Twitter talk and real policy/action, whether it's blaming some academic epidemiologist for the local lockdown, or for hiding the truth about Covid origins
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drethescientist @zeynep and
It shouldn't need to be said but it's good to be clear to the public about who is responsible for what; in this case, that someone like Dr. Krammer expressing skepticism has no relation to how soon we find an answer to this question, so he shouldn't be attacked for it
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @drethescientist @zeynep and
Saying that his reasonable view on the lottery, to refer to the tweet above, "does not let us figure out" the answer to the question is an example of potentially misleading framing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I disagree. In contrast, I think pointing out the correct/better framing helps make the argument that you cannot get a sensible discussion of this question in this manner. Nothing wrong with anyone's opinion, but correct evidentiary frameworks are crucial to progress.
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.