Private channel session 1348
22 messages over 1h 28m, 2021-05-10 – 2021-05-10.
A “conversation” here is an activity session — a run of messages with under 60 minutes of silence inside it. The channel had no native conversation boundaries.
-
Baric
-
Yup, some relevant people on it - those two being the main two
-
Have you talked to Worobey about any of this previously? There's nothing in the letter itself, but clearly it lays out afalse balance
-
No. I wouldn't have expected him to get embroiled in this (particularly after the whole Ed Hooper stuff)
-
Yeah, I was very surprised to see him on here - and disappointed.
-
I was thinking more about the false equivalence stuff - perhaps we need a really good figure. Something not like this:
-
shared file(s): 2390701C-054C-4D1C-B9DB-1273AC4475CA_1_105_c.jpeg
-
Baric - aka Deep Throat- is on because Po1 got too much press and we're not really coronavirologists.
-
Basically you have gazillion bat viruses. A small fraction of these are human/civet/raccoon dog transmissible but you have millions of these and any transmissible viruses will jump. These will then jump to humans. You have numbers and time on your side. The alternative is a lab samples, say, 10,000 bats (all from a few locations). That sample hasto contain the human transmissible one (but it will not be selecting for it, unlike the carnivore reservoir), it has to stay viable as a virus and infect one person (out of a handful that may be working with the samples). Also the one human infectious virus (out of 10,000 has to be the one to stay viable and infect the lab worker.
-
If you have zero evidence that SC2 was in the lab then you are left with this vanishingly small prior probability.
-
? [shared file(s): image.png]
-
t proportion of bat viruses that are carnivore/human transmissible e number of exposures between bats and carnivores (over all locations, and over decades) p(h) probability of human infection per carnivore outbreak p(p) probability of pandemic arising per human infection p_zoonotic = t x e x p(h) x p(p) t is very small but e is very large For the lab scenario N = number of samples collected by the lab p(i) = probability a sample remains infectious p(l) = probability of a lab infection s = number of scientists handling material p_lab = t x N x p(i) x (1 - [1 - p(l)] ^ s) x p(p) In this one, t is very small, all of the p() are < 1 and N is not that big
-
Brilliant! Math>>>Figure
-
I forgot to add in p(f) = probability that WIV is fibbing
-
Love it @Andrew Rambaut - and yes, this is what we need. For the ones above e >>> N and p(i) is also very low - probably ~1%. p(l) can be calibrated based on previous lab escapes and is also low - much less than 1%, but let's keep it at that. p(h) we can calibrate based on sero surveys, using a one year seroreversion - so 2% ofpopulation in certain areas.
-
According to The Seeker, nobody in their right mind would consider p(f) > 0.... :wink:
-
Worth plotting some of this out?
-
p(h) may be close to 1 - if there is an outbreak in a farmed carnivore population.
-
Yeah, p(h) definitely high - p(p I h) specifically for SARS-CoV-2 also high because of the features of the virus.
-
Here's Jim's email - note the sly comments from Relman. Unsurprising (and not something I'll comment on - if he wants to specify exactly what's unsupported in our letter, I'm happy to address it. Usual bs). [shared file(s): lab investigation letter]
-
Seems like she learned a few lessons: https://twitter.com/Ayjchan/status/1391753059504738308?s=20 However, we then end up on this conclusion... It's just dumb. [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 09.49.40.png, Screen Shot 2021-05-10 at 09.51.51.png]
-
And this fucking fake statistics about the likelihood of see CGG_CGG. It's intelligent design / irreducible complexityall over again.