A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
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.
-
2021-05-10 09:15
Kristian G. Andersen
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.