YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by Jonathan

Human avatar
Rootclaim blog author
Multiplying the share of markets (1 and 2) by the share of HSM within markets (3), we converge to around 3-5%.
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 The quote is relevant because, in source context, it is a concrete step in the article’s Bayes-factor style COVID-origins analysis: the author is estimating a conditional probability for an HSM spillover under zoonosis, immediately after framing the dispute in terms of comparing conditional probabilities/Bayes factors and presenting that as the proper way to analyze the question. That makes the author’s stance on the complete statement substantially more likely to be determinable. ([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, this quote is part of the source’s explicit Bayes-factor/conditional-probability analysis of COVID origins, using a numerical estimate for p(HSM|Zoonosis,Wuhan). That makes support for Bayesian analysis as the proper framework substantially more likely. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote itself is a Bayesian-style conditional-probability estimate ('we converge to around 3-5%'), and the surrounding article says COVID-origins evidence should be evaluated by 'the ratio of the conditional probabilities'/'Bayes factor' and calls that 'the best way to approach this question.' That strongly implies support for Bayesian analysis as the right framework here. ([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 itself is a Bayesian-style likelihood estimate (HSM spillover/cluster "around 3-5%"), and the source explicitly says COVID-origins evidence should be evaluated by Bayes factors and by "learning how to do probabilistic inference correctly," presenting that methodology as superior for reaching the conclusion. That strongly implies the author sees Bayesian analysis as the proper framework for deciding the question. ([blog.rootclaim.com](https://blog.rootclaim.com/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The quote appears verbatim on the cited Rootclaim page: “Multiplying the share of markets (1 and 2) by the share of HSM within markets (3), we converge to around 3-5%.” The same page is titled “COVID origins debate: Response to Scott Alexander,” dated April 1, 2024, and credited to Jonathan, so the stored quote, attribution, date, and source URL are consistent. ([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 provided URL is fetchable. The article there is titled "COVID origins debate: Response to Scott Alexander," dated April 1, 2024, and bylined "Jonathan." The exact submitted sentence appears verbatim in the article body, so the quote is authentic and correctly attributed, and the stored author, date, quote text, and source URL 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