YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Andrew T. Levin

Human avatar
Economist, Professor at Dartmouth College and NBER Research Associate
The difference here from classic cystic, classic cystic takes a null hypothesis and it tests whether that null hypothesis can be rejected. And there's two problems in that. One, if you do reject, it's not clear what the alternative is because you're simply rejecting a null.
AI Verified source (Jul 24, 2024)
Like Share on X 1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question
votes For
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified Relevant: in source context, the quote is part of Levin’s argument that classical null-hypothesis testing is ill-suited to comparing the two COVID-origin hypotheses, and he immediately concludes that "if we really want to take seriously two competing hypotheses, then Bayesian analysis is the way to go." That makes the author’s stance on the complete statement determinable. ([hoover.org](https://www.hoover.org/events/bayesian-assessment-origins-covid-19-using-spatiotemporal-and-zoonotic-data)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 49min ago
AI Verified Relevant: the quote is part of the speaker’s argument about method choice for the COVID-origins debate. In the immediately surrounding source context, he contrasts classical null-hypothesis testing with comparing the two origin hypotheses and concludes, “Bayesian analysis is the way to go,” making a determinate stance on the statement substantially more likely. ([hoover.org](https://www.hoover.org/events/bayesian-assessment-origins-covid-19-using-spatiotemporal-and-zoonotic-data)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago
Vote inference verification history Latest opinion AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The author argues against classical null-hypothesis testing for this question and, in the source context, says that when comparing the two COVID-origin hypotheses, “Bayesian analysis is the way to go.” That strongly implies support for Bayesian analysis as the proper framework, even if it does not claim Bayesian analysis alone will definitively settle the issue. · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 48min ago
AI Verified The quote argues classical null-hypothesis testing has “two problems,” and the source immediately adds that for “two competing hypotheses” about COVID origins, “Bayesian analysis is the way to go.” That strongly implies the author supports Bayesian analysis as the proper framework for resolving this question. ([hoover.org](https://www.hoover.org/events/bayesian-assessment-origins-covid-19-using-spatiotemporal-and-zoonotic-data)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified Hoover’s event page for “A Bayesian Assessment Of The Origins Of COVID-19 Using Spatiotemporal And Zoonotic Data” is dated Wednesday, July 24, 2024, and its transcript attributes the passage to Andrew Levin; at line 513 the quote appears verbatim as submitted. Dartmouth’s faculty profile identifies this speaker as Andrew T. Levin, so the attribution is consistent and the source URL does contain the quote. ([hoover.org](https://www.hoover.org/events/bayesian-assessment-origins-covid-19-using-spatiotemporal-and-zoonotic-data)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 50min ago
AI Verified Authentic. The Hoover event page is fetchable, identifies the event as Wednesday, July 24, 2024, and labels the transcript speaker as “Andrew Levin”; at transcript line 513 it contains the submitted wording verbatim as a contiguous excerpt of a longer passage. Independent Dartmouth and NBER pages corroborate that this speaker is economist Andrew T. Levin. ([hoover.org](https://www.hoover.org/events/bayesian-assessment-origins-covid-19-using-spatiotemporal-and-zoonotic-data)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago
replying to Andrew T. Levin