Yes, but if you take 1 billion Chinese and maybe 200 employees of the WIV what are the odds that “patient zero” is from the WIV?
5,000,000 to 1.
This is obviously not the right calculation, and I expected better from a rationalist. I’ve already counted the fact that it started in Wuhan where they happen to have a biosafety 4 lab studying coronaviruses as the strongest evidence in favor of the leak. You may feel I didn’t count it strongly enough, but that’s a different argument. What does the entire population of China have to do with it after that point? Nothing. You’re being completely arbitrary by drawing the boundary there. Why not the entire world?
The population of Wuhan, maybe, but we can probably narrow it down more than that, and then we also have to account for the fact that the WIV employees would be much more likely to report anything out of the ordinary when it comes to illness. For the rest of Wuhan at the time, the most common symptoms would have been reported as “the flu” or “a cold”. Mild cases are common, and at least a third of people have no noticeable symptoms at all, especially early on with the less virulent original variant.
The population of Wuhan is about 8.5 million, and the number of staff at WIV, I think was more like 600. So that’s more like 14,000 : 1. I think WIV staff could be easily 20x more likely to notice that the disease was novel, so that’s more like 700 : 1. That’s still pretty strong evidence, but nowhere near what you’re proposing.
This is obviously not the right calculation, and I expected better from a rationalist. I’ve already counted the fact that it started in Wuhan where they happen to have a biosafety 4 lab studying coronaviruses as the strongest evidence in favor of the leak.
I have 99% as my likelihood for the lab leak not 99,9999%, I don’t suggest that 5,000,000 to 1 should be the end number. It’s just a random calculation.
I am often enough at metaculus and played the credence game to not go for the 99.9% that Dr. Roland Wiesendanger proposes.
I think WIV staff could be easily 20x more likely to notice that the disease was novel, so that’s more like 700 : 1.
If that’s your calculation how can you justify only 65%, especially when that’s only one of the pieces of evidence?
This is obviously not the right calculation, and I expected better from a rationalist. I’ve already counted the fact that it started in Wuhan where they happen to have a biosafety 4 lab studying coronaviruses as the strongest evidence in favor of the leak. You may feel I didn’t count it strongly enough, but that’s a different argument. What does the entire population of China have to do with it after that point? Nothing. You’re being completely arbitrary by drawing the boundary there. Why not the entire world?
The population of Wuhan, maybe, but we can probably narrow it down more than that, and then we also have to account for the fact that the WIV employees would be much more likely to report anything out of the ordinary when it comes to illness. For the rest of Wuhan at the time, the most common symptoms would have been reported as “the flu” or “a cold”. Mild cases are common, and at least a third of people have no noticeable symptoms at all, especially early on with the less virulent original variant.
The population of Wuhan is about 8.5 million, and the number of staff at WIV, I think was more like 600. So that’s more like 14,000 : 1. I think WIV staff could be easily 20x more likely to notice that the disease was novel, so that’s more like 700 : 1. That’s still pretty strong evidence, but nowhere near what you’re proposing.
I have 99% as my likelihood for the lab leak not 99,9999%, I don’t suggest that 5,000,000 to 1 should be the end number. It’s just a random calculation.
I am often enough at metaculus and played the credence game to not go for the 99.9% that Dr. Roland Wiesendanger proposes.
If that’s your calculation how can you justify only 65%, especially when that’s only one of the pieces of evidence?