We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Andrew T. Levin
Economist, Professor at Dartmouth College and NBER Research Associate
If we really want to take seriously two competing hypotheses, then Bayesian analysis is the way to go. And so that's what we're going to do here.AI Verified source (Jul 24, 2024)
1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
Relevant: in the source context, the author is explicitly discussing the COVID-19 origins question as a choice between lab leak and zoonotic spillover, criticizes classical hypothesis testing for this use, and says Bayesian analysis is the way to evaluate those competing hypotheses. That makes a supportive stance on Bayesian analysis as the proper framework for this question 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
· 47min ago
AI Verified
Relevant: in context, the speaker is explicitly discussing the COVID-19 origins question as a choice between accidental lab leak and zoonotic spillover, and argues that Bayesian analysis is the appropriate method for evaluating those competing hypotheses, contrasted with classical hypothesis testing. That makes a determinate stance on the complete 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 answer comments
AI Verified
He is clearly supportive: in the talk he says that for the two COVID-origin hypotheses, "Bayesian analysis is the way to go" and contrasts it with classical hypothesis testing as not making sense here; "settling" is a fair inference from his use of Bayesian analysis as the framework for evaluating the competing origins explanations. ([hoover.org](https://www.hoover.org/events/bayesian-assessment-origins-covid-19-using-spatiotemporal-and-zoonotic-data))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 46min ago
AI Verified
He explicitly supports the statement. In context, he contrasts Bayesian analysis with classical null-hypothesis testing and says that, for seriously evaluating the two COVID-origin hypotheses (accident vs. zoonotic spillover), Bayesian analysis is “the way to go” and is the approach the paper will use. ([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 thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
Verified. The Hoover Institution source URL for the July 24, 2024 workshop includes a transcript that attributes this exact wording to Andrew Levin: “If we really want to take seriously two competing hypotheses, then Bayesian analysis is the way to go. And so that's what we're going to do here.” The same page identifies the event date as Wednesday, July 24, 2024, and Dartmouth identifies the speaker’s full name as Andrew T. Levin, so the stored quote, attribution, date, and source URL are consistent. ([hoover.org](https://www.hoover.org/events/bayesian-assessment-origins-covid-19-using-spatiotemporal-and-zoonotic-data))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 48min ago
AI Verified
At the source URL’s transcript, the exact sentence appears verbatim in Andrew Levin’s remarks: “If we really want to take seriously two competing hypotheses, then Bayesian analysis is the way to go. And so that's what we're going to do here.” The Hoover page identifies the speaker as Andrew Levin and dates the event Wednesday, July 24, 2024. Dartmouth’s faculty page identifies him as Andrew T. Levin, so the stored author/date/source are canonically consistent and need no correction. ([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