YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Jonathan

Human avatar
Rootclaim blog author
We should now do the same for the other conditional probability. Here the common mistake is to miss the hindsight bias in assuming HSM is a likely spillover location, given zoonosis.
AI Verified source (Apr 1, 2024)
Like Share on X 2h 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 the source context, the article explicitly argues that COVID-origins evidence should be evaluated via Bayes factors and conditional probabilities, and this quote is a methodological step in estimating p(HSM|Zoonosis,Wuhan). That makes it part of the author’s reasoning for using a Bayesian framework on the COVID-19 origins question. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
AI Verified Relevant: in context, the quote is part of the article’s explicit Bayes-factor/conditional-probability analysis of COVID origins, specifically how to estimate p(HSM|Zoonosis) and avoid hindsight bias. That makes support for Bayesian analysis as the proper framework substantially more likely. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
Vote inference verification history Latest opinion AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The author is clearly for it: the quote treats the dispute as one of estimating "the other conditional probability" and correcting hindsight bias in p(HSM|zoonosis). In context, the article says the evidence should be evaluated by the ratio of conditional probabilities, i.e. a Bayes factor, and presents that as the best way to approach the COVID-origins question. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
AI Verified The quote is part of a Bayes-style comparison of conditional probabilities, and the article explicitly says, “Our goal in a probabilistic analysis is to estimate Bayes factors.” That strongly implies the author sees Bayesian/probabilistic analysis as the proper framework for resolving the COVID-origins evidence, including this HSM question. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The quote is authentic and verbatim. The exact sentence appears in the Rootclaim blog post titled "COVID origins debate: Response to Scott Alexander," published on April 1, 2024, and the page attributes the post to Jonathan. The provided source URL is the page that contains the quote. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
AI Verified The quote is authentic and verbatim on the cited URL. The fetched page is titled “COVID origins debate: Response to Scott Alexander,” its header lists the author as “Jonathan” and the date as April 1, 2024, and the exact quoted sentence appears in the body at lines 142-143. The stored author, date, source URL, and quote text all match the source. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/covid-origins-debate-response-to-scott-alexander/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
replying to Jonathan