YouCongress
About Sign up

Comment by somebody

Human avatar
Statistical Modeling blog commenter on Bayesian analysis and COVID-19 origins
The value add by this “bayesian analysis” is hence 0. It’s just numbers and keywords thrown in for a sense of scientific authority for what is an entirely qualitative argument.
AI Verified (Feb 4, 2021)
Source:
somebody, comment on Andrew Gelman, "About that claim that ‘SARS-CoV-2 is not a natural zoonosis but instead is laboratory derived’", Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, February 4, 2021.
Like Share on X 2h ago
Policy proposals and claims
Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified The quote is directly about using a Bayesian analysis to resolve the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 origins debate on the cited page. In context, the author says this Bayesian analysis has "value add" of 0, consists of arbitrary quantitative mappings of qualitative claims, and is "not a standard approach in the field," which makes opposition to Bayesian analysis as the right framework for settling the origins question substantially more likely. ([statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/02/01/about-that-claim-that-sars-cov-2-is-not-a-natural-zoonosis-but-instead-is-laboratory-derived/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The author is rejecting Bayesian analysis as the framework here: they say its "value add ... is hence 0," call it "numbers and keywords thrown in for a sense of scientific authority," and add that such Bayesian arguments "without data are indeed not a standard approach in the field." That strongly implies opposition to the claim that Bayesian analysis is the right way to settle COVID-19 origins, even if the criticism is directed at this specific paper's version of Bayesian analysis. ([statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/02/01/about-that-claim-that-sars-cov-2-is-not-a-natural-zoonosis-but-instead-is-laboratory-derived/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The source URL is fetchable and contains the exact quoted text verbatim in a comment attributed to "somebody" posted on February 4, 2021 (12:03 PM). The wording matches exactly, including the curly quotes around “bayesian analysis,” so the stored author, date, content, and source are consistent with the page. ([statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/02/01/about-that-claim-that-sars-cov-2-is-not-a-natural-zoonosis-but-instead-is-laboratory-derived/)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 2h ago
replying to somebody