Post hoc probability calculations like these are a Sisyphean task. There are infinite variables to consider, most can’t be properly measured, even ballparked.
On (1), pandemics are arguably more likely to originate in large cities because population density facilitates spread, large wildlife markets are more likely, and they serve as major travel hubs. I’m confused why the denominator is China’s population for (1) but all the world’s BSL-4 labs in (3). I don’t understand the calculation for (2)… that seems the opposite of “fairly easy to get a ballpark figure for.” Ditto for (4).
pandemics are arguably more likely to originate in large cities because population density facilitates spread, large wildlife markets are more likely, and they serve as major travel hubs
Say it’s 2x more likely in Urban areas. It doesn’t really make that much difference. Plus, there is some probability of it going to Vietnam or other SE Asian countries (Vietnam is closer to Yunnan than Wuhan is).
I would have to agree with the parent, this line of approach, with this kind of calculation attempt is a ‘Sisyphean task’. You, along with everyone else on Earth, simply lack the mental capacity to actually accomplish this. Even if you had access to the millions of perfect data sources required.
Did you misread the comment? Clearly in the real world you will not have such perfect data sources, hence why I wrote “ And we are very far from even that.”
i.e. A practically zero chance in the ideal world turns into a hopeless endeavour, “Sisyphean Task” in the real world. And that’s also while assuming a level of intelligence way beyond you or anyone else.
I still think I understand just fine along with the several other folks expressing skepticism. To be frank your personal opinions can’t outweigh anyone else’s here so it really isn’t a productive line of discussion.
EDIT: Maybe try putting forward actual arguments, or addressing the numerous other comments with substantial points?
Post hoc probability calculations like these are a Sisyphean task. There are infinite variables to consider, most can’t be properly measured, even ballparked.
On (1), pandemics are arguably more likely to originate in large cities because population density facilitates spread, large wildlife markets are more likely, and they serve as major travel hubs. I’m confused why the denominator is China’s population for (1) but all the world’s BSL-4 labs in (3). I don’t understand the calculation for (2)… that seems the opposite of “fairly easy to get a ballpark figure for.” Ditto for (4).
China was 63% Urban in 2020.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/270162/urbanization-in-china/
Say it’s 2x more likely in Urban areas. It doesn’t really make that much difference. Plus, there is some probability of it going to Vietnam or other SE Asian countries (Vietnam is closer to Yunnan than Wuhan is).
I would have to agree with the parent, this line of approach, with this kind of calculation attempt is a ‘Sisyphean task’. You, along with everyone else on Earth, simply lack the mental capacity to actually accomplish this. Even if you had access to the millions of perfect data sources required.
And we are very far from even that.
Why not try a different approach?
The whole point of probability theory is to make decisions when you do not have “perfect data sources”
Why even talk about probabilistic reasoning if you won’t use it until the data is “perfect” and you are omniscient?
Did you misread the comment? Clearly in the real world you will not have such perfect data sources, hence why I wrote “ And we are very far from even that.”
i.e. A practically zero chance in the ideal world turns into a hopeless endeavour, “Sisyphean Task” in the real world. And that’s also while assuming a level of intelligence way beyond you or anyone else.
I don’t think you understand probability theory
Well I think I do?, so just opining another LW user doesn’t understand “probability theory” is not going to lead anywhere productive.
The point of probabilities is to quantify uncertainty, not to wait until you are omnipotent and have all the data needed to reach certainty
I still think I understand just fine along with the several other folks expressing skepticism. To be frank your personal opinions can’t outweigh anyone else’s here so it really isn’t a productive line of discussion.
EDIT: Maybe try putting forward actual arguments, or addressing the numerous other comments with substantial points?