YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Jonathan

Human avatar
Rootclaim blog author
At this point, what was claimed to be 10,000x evidence (increases the odds of the zoonosis hypothesis by 10,000), turns out to be less than 5x – Because, as explained in 1, we need to divide the two conditional probabilities, which are at best 5% and 1%, giving a ratio lower than 5x.
AI Verified source (Apr 1, 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 context, the quote is not just about COVID generally; it is part of the source's core argument that the origins question should be evaluated by Bayes factors, i.e. ratios of conditional probabilities, and the article says this is "the best way to approach this question." The quoted reduction from claimed 10,000x evidence to under 5x is presented as a concrete Bayesian-analysis reason bearing directly on how to settle the COVID-origins dispute. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 45min ago
AI Verified Relevant: the quote directly applies Bayesian-style reasoning to COVID origins by comparing conditional probabilities/Bayes factors for zoonosis vs. lab leak, and the source frames this method as how to assess the evidence and “the best way to approach this question.” That makes the author’s stance on the statement substantially determinable. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · 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 is arguing in Bayesian terms: the quote says "we need to divide the two conditional probabilities," and the article explicitly says evidence strength is measured by the ratio of conditional probabilities (a Bayes factor), calls this "the best way to approach this question," and says one must learn probabilistic inference correctly to understand COVID origins. That strongly supports Bayesian analysis as the proper framework here. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 44min ago
AI Verified The quote itself uses the Bayesian move of comparing hypotheses by a likelihood ratio: "we need to divide the two conditional probabilities." In the source context, the author says the strength of evidence is measured by that ratio (a Bayes factor) and calls this "the best way to approach this question," which strongly implies support for Bayesian analysis as the proper framework for resolving COVID-origins claims. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The exact quote appears verbatim in the Rootclaim post at the supplied URL. That post is titled “COVID origins debate: Response to Scott Alexander,” dated April 1, 2024, and attributed on the page and author archive to Jonathan, matching the stored author, date, source URL, and content. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 46min ago
AI Verified The quote is authentic and verbatim in the cited page: the exact sentence appears in the article at lines 45-46, and that same page’s header attributes the post to Jonathan and dates it April 1, 2024. Rootclaim’s author archive also lists the article under Jonathan. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago
replying to Jonathan