21–30 of 372 posts
They're probably receiving >$100k worth of attention by making this claim so... I'd like to see more zeroes in the wager.
I don't see any _new information_ here, it's all stuff we've known for months. To me, this is just a conspiracy theory wrapped up with 'probability charts'. Unless I'm missing something, is there any non-circumstantial evidence that this is true? All I've seen for the past year(!) is "it's not a coincidence that these two things happened in the same place" - which isn't science.
It is part of divining what type of experiment or investigation is indicated to unearth direct evidence.
From the opinion piece in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences I linked elsewhere in this thread:
""" An investigative process should be transparent, collaborative, international, and, to the extent possible, devoid of political interest. Recent, productive scientific collaborations between the United States and China, for example, provide hope that such a process can be achieved. But the kind of effort required will need to expand far beyond what’s taken place so far, and nations other than the United States and China will need to be involved. Conflicts of interest by researchers, administrators, and policymakers on all sides must be revealed and addressed, and all relevant global constituencies must be included. """
For what it is worth, they say there is an 81% probability, based on their analysis, that it was a lab leak. That is not the same thing as "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab" - so I think the title is a little misleading - which is probably why the title actually seems to be "What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)?"
How can someone "prove" it is Zoonotic in origin, to "win" the bet?
Is this a false challenge; Someone may be able to prove that this started in a lab, but no one can prove the opposite. Free publicity.
As an aside, it looks like they list "No whistleblowers" and "No reported infections at WIV" as increasing the odds it is not Zoonotic, which makes no sense.
For what it is worth, they say there is an 81% probability, based on their analysis, that it was a lab leak. That is not the same thing as "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab" - so I think the title is a little misleading - which is probably why the title actually seems to be "What is the source of COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2)?"
From their Twitter account: "Probably our most surprising finding to date: COVID-19 has likely originated in a lab. A probabilistic analysis shows the proximity to a major coronavirus lab and anomalies in the genetic code are too unlikely for SARS-CoV-2 to have developed naturally. " https://twitter.com/Rootclaim/status/1343207878325383168
The posting says the startup "claims COVID-19 originated in a lab", whereas the Twitter post says it "has likely originated in a lab."
There's an important distinction between fact and likelihood of fact.
I'm glad they put money behind it, but dislike that they're expecting $10,000-$100,000 in risk from submissions. They hyped up the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, but - as far as I can tell - that challenge didn't require the applicants to take on such risk.
I get that they want to stem the tide of low-quality submissions, but doing it this way really takes the wind out of their James Randi spiel.
With the paranormal challenge, you could say "the lack of applicants indicates they know the claim is false." With this, the lack of applicants could just as easily indicate a lack of funds/risk tolerance.
> When you see a reliable public betting challenge with real stakes, you can be very confident the claim is true at a probability that is significantly above 50% (assuming 1:1 odds are being offered). This makes the assumption that the overall stakes are even. What if Alex Jones puts up 100K that boiled frog eyes cure COVID? He could be absurdly wrong, but the additional credibility offered by this may let him sell a…
Where do they offer $100K to anyone who debunks their hypothesis? How can someone "prove" it is Zoonotic in origin, to "win" the bet? Is this a false challenge; Someone may be able to prove that this started in a lab, but no one can prove the opposite. Free publicity. As an aside, it looks like they list "No whistleblowers" and "No reported infections at WIV" as increasing the odds it is not Zoonotic, which makes no…