We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Comment by Donald Gislason
LessWrong commenter on Bayesian analysis and COVID-19 origins
Given that full transparency from Chinese authorities is unlikely, assessing the probabilities is the best we can do. Fortunately, that has been done with with impressive scientific rigour by DRASTIC member Dr. Steven Quay MD, PhD in his technically detailed 193-page Bayesian analysis of 26 known facts about the outbreak [...] The advantage of this approach is that it follows the scientific method: laying out clearly its premises and calculations so that they can be challenged and tested by experts in the field.AI Verified (2021)
1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes For
Statement relation comments
AI Verified
The quote is directly about the methodological question in the statement: in source context, Gislason says that because full transparency on COVID-19 origins is unlikely, assessing probabilities is the best available approach, then points to a specific Bayesian analysis as scientifically rigorous and praises that approach for making its premises and calculations testable by experts. That makes a pro-Bayesian stance on settling the origins question substantially more likely. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cBJSwjk5FehJx4CNG/comment-on-the-lab-leak-hypothesis))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Vote answer comments
AI Verified
He supports it: he says "assessing the probabilities is the best we can do" and praises Quay’s "Bayesian analysis" for its "impressive scientific rigour" and for following "the scientific method." That strongly implies Bayesian analysis is, in his view, the appropriate framework for settling the origins question given limited transparency. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cBJSwjk5FehJx4CNG/comment-on-the-lab-leak-hypothesis))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
Quote authenticity verification history
Report thisQuote authenticity comments
AI Verified
The LessWrong page contains this exact wording in a comment attributed to Donald Gislason: the quoted text appears at lines 217-222, and the submitter’s [...] only omits the intervening Zenodo link plus the clause “which he explains in layman's terms in his interview with Julius Killerby (cited in my comment above),” so the excerpt is faithful and verbatim aside from the marked omission. The fetched thread is dated 11th Jun 2021, which supports the stored year 2021. ([lesswrong.com](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cBJSwjk5FehJx4CNG/comment-on-the-lab-leak-hypothesis))
·
YouCongress
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05
· 1h ago
replying to Donald Gislason