Bayesian analysis is the right framework for settling the COVID-19 origins question

covid-19-origins flf-epistack research-policy health world disinformation public-health

Share this with your representatives, journalists and friends

Arguments for

Comparing competing hypotheses

Supporters say Bayesian probability is a natural and intuitive way to characterize uncertainty and compare rival explanations when information is limited. By starting with priors and updating them into posterior odds, it evaluates which competing hypothesis is more plausible rather than only rejecting a null.

Bayesian probability provides a natural and intuitive framework for characterising and communicating uncertainty. Bayesian analysis simply applies the laws of probability to evaluate which hypothesis is more plausible in light of whatever relevant information we have, however lim…

European University Institute · Jan 14, 2026 · full quote
Bayesian probability provides a natural and intuitive framework for characterising and communicating uncertainty. Bayesian analysis simply applies the laws of probability to evaluate which hypothesis is more plausible in light of whatever relevant information we have, however lim…

Tasha Fairfield · Jan 14, 2026 · full quote
Now, the nice thing about Bayesian analysis, many of you know this is, it's good for evaluating two competing hypotheses because you start with priors, which may be based on intuition, or it may be based on prior evidence that you have. And then you update those priors with speci…

Andrew T. Levin · Jul 24, 2024 · full quote
The difference here from classic cystic, classic cystic takes a null hypothesis and it tests whether that null hypothesis can be rejected. And there's two problems in that. One, if you do reject, it's not clear what the alternative is because you're simply rejecting a null.

Andrew T. Levin · Jul 24, 2024 · full quote
If we really want to take seriously two competing hypotheses, then Bayesian analysis is the way to go. And so that's what we're going to do here.

Andrew T. Levin · Jul 24, 2024 · full quote

Combining evidence transparently

Proponents argue that Bayes is well suited to combining multiple lines of evidence, including by breaking a complex problem into smaller conditional components and multiplying them together. They present this as a transparent way to show how each piece of evidence changes the odds and to update conclusions as new evidence appears.

Bayesian inference, a method of statistical inference based on Bayes' Theorem, enables calculation of probabilities of hypotheses based on multiple lines of evidence and enables updating of probabilities of hypotheses as additional lines of evidence become available. Bayesian ana…

Richard H. Ebright · Jun 18, 2024 · full quote
The core Bayesian formula. It allows us to calculate what our hypothesis H should be given the evidence E. The only problem with this formula is that it can not easily integrate multiple pieces of evidence. For that we will need to do a slight rewrite. [...] The node below aims t…

Jasper Blank · Jun 16, 2026 · full quote
Throughout the exchange I returned repeatedly to the same request: assign probabilities to the six propositions and multiply them together.

Bob Morris, MD, PhD · Apr 15, 2026 · full quote
And then it turns out here again, a nice feature of Bayesian analysis is that the posterior odds is the prior multiplied by these components because each of the components is essentially an independent conditional question.

Andrew T. Levin · Jul 24, 2024 · full quote
A Bayes factor is the ratio of conditional probabilities. A conditional probability p(E|H) is the probability the evidence E will occur, assuming H is true.

Jonathan · Apr 1, 2024 · full quote

Correcting inference errors

Supporters point to cases where correcting a Bayesian mistake reportedly reversed the implication of an analysis or sharply reduced support for a natural-origin account. In this view, formal likelihood comparisons can expose flawed reasoning and produce robust overall odds between lab-leak and zoonosis hypotheses.

After correcting a fundamental error in Bayesian reasoning, the results presented in that paper imply larger likelihood for a single introduction, reducing the plausibility of the wet-market zoonosis account of Covid’s origins.

Marginal Revolution · Mar 31, 2026 · full quote
Weissman uses a simple analogy to explain the error. Correcting the error using the data, model, and simulations of the original paper reverses the implication of the analysis-the single-introduction likelihood becomes greater than the two-introductions likelihood. That undermine…

EJW Audio · Mar 29, 2026 · full quote
Instead of a Bayes factor of 0.25, we get a Bayes factor of 11.95 because one reasonable model (early cases predict locations of subsequent cases) is compared to an unreasonable model (everyone is infected by raccoon dogs).

Zach H · Feb 5, 2025 · full quote
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…

Jonathan · Apr 1, 2024 · full quote
These four conditional Bayes factors are estimated as 2.3:1, 20:1, 27:1, and 12:1, respectively, and hence the overall odds ratio is 14,900:1, indicating overwhelming evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the pandemic resulted from an accidental lab leak. This conclusion is ro…

Andrew T. Levin · Jan 2025 · full quote

Best available under uncertainty

Several proponents say explicit probabilistic reasoning is preferable to rules of thumb or unspoken assumptions, especially if full transparency or definitive proof is unlikely. Making priors and likelihoods explicit, they argue, lets the evidence rather than intuition drive the conclusion and makes premises open to challenge.

This kind of rules-of-thumb thinking is bound to result in wrong conclusions. There is sadly no alternative to a proper rigorous probabilistic analysis of all evidence using a methodology that avoids human bias.

Jonathan · Apr 1, 2024 · full quote
Don’t give up so easily! We as a society have spent approximately 0% of our collective decision-making resources on explicit Bayesian reasoning. Just because Rootclaim used Bayesian methods and then lost a debate doesn’t mean those methods will never work. [...] I’m optimistic th…

Michael Dickens · Apr 3, 2024 · full quote
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 ana…

Donald Gislason · 2021 · full quote
I thought the whole point of Bayesianism was to make more clear the often arbitrary and/or questionable priors that we all start research with.

A Country Farmer · Feb 2, 2021 · full quote
The conclusion that one should reach is to assign equal probabilities to all hypothesis and allow the evidence to decide which is more likely.

Sam · Aug 1, 2025 · full quote

Arguments against

Missing data block settlement

Critics argue that the available record is too incomplete to settle origins through Bayesian analysis, because fundamental data and access are missing and official reviews still say the evidence is insufficient for definitive conclusions. Some add that investigation using human, signals, data, or open-source intelligence may be more illuminating than scientific analyses alone.

Science alone cannot tell us how Covid emerged in Wuhan in 2019. An investigation must determine whether the virus was studied in a laboratory before the detected outbreak. Intelligence collected from human sources, intercepted signals or data, and open-source intelligence may be…

Alina Chan · Oct 2025 · full quote
Without China providing fundamental data, definitive conclusions remain impossible.

David Relman · Aug 27, 2025 · full quote
While available information is insufficient to definitively conclude the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the independent assessment of SARS-CoV-2 origins report (June 2025) published by the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) reviewed all available evidence…

COVID-19 Global Risk Assessment- Version 9 · Feb 2026 · full quote
It remains a priority to study the origins of COVID. While the evidence for accidental origin of COVID is not definitive, there is a substantial body of strong circumstantial evidence. US intelligence agencies remain divided. The WHO Director has said publicly there is not enough…

Tom Inglesby · Jul 28, 2025 · full quote
The origins of COVID-19 remain uncertain. A lab-associated incident is plausible; so is natural spillover.

Renée DiResta · Jun 23, 2026 · full quote

Ill-defined probability space

Another objection is that Bayesian inference needs clearly specified hypotheses and a well-defined probability space, while 'lab leak' and 'zoonosis' are broad composite models. Critics say the result then depends on what is counted as data and which counterfactual possibilities are averaged over, making the calculation ill-posed for this question.

It's hard to compute Bayesian probabilities for this problem, not so much because of the priors but because of the likelihood, which is the probability of the data given the model. One problem is the selection of what is considered to be data, the other problem is that the model …

Andrew Gelman · Aug 1, 2025 · full quote
In my post “Why I’m not a Bayesian”, I argued that the Bayesian approach of assigning credences to propositions with binary truth values only works in simple and restricted domains. Instead, I claimed, a better approach to epistemology is to assign degrees of truth to models of t…

Richard Ngo · Jun 9, 2026 · full quote
You cannot apply Bayes' Theorem until you have a probability space; many real-world situations, especially the ones people argue about, do not have well-defined probability spaces, including a complete set of mutually exclusive and exhaustive possible events, which are agreed upo…

sarahconstantin · Oct 6, 2024 · full quote
Weissman prefers a Bayesian approach, where you average over counterfactual realities, where one detail could have been different. [...] This process of averaging over different possibilities can go on forever, and no one agrees on which counterfactual scenarios to average over.

Peter Miller · Apr 6, 2026 · full quote
Anything claiming to be “Bayesian” but not doing actual Bayesian statistics (fitting models to data and then doing an inference from a posterior distribution, justifying all steps especially the prior) is untrustworthy. I have never seen a convincing example of it, and I don’t th…

Anonymous · Feb 3, 2025 · full quote

Subjective numbers and bias

Opponents say origin analyses often smuggle subjective judgment into data inclusion and guessed likelihoods while presenting the result as objective math. On this view, Bayesian language can become a cover for motivated reasoning or 'mathy' arguments built on shaky premises.

I am skeptical that the Bayesian decision making/evaluation methods are any more "objective" than [intuitive reasoning]. I think they maximize legibility, not objectivity, and tend to hide the intuitive/heuristic portion in the data inclusion step and values, where it’s harder to…

Will Van Treuren · Mar 28, 2024 · full quote
On the Rootclaim thing: My impression was that they were doing Bayes badly. I have to admit I got a bit bogged down in the incredibly long article about it and all the back-and-forth, but as I understood it they really felt that you could come up with objective probabilities, rat…

Tom Chivers · May 8, 2024 · full quote
I agree with this! It seems like a great cover for motivated reasoning, use some Bayesian analysis to come to your preferred conclusion. What is missing here is any input from relevant experts (virologists, genomics, epidemiologists, etc) to inform the analysis.

JDK · Feb 4, 2025 · full quote
It’s easy to fool oneself into thinking one has a solid argument based on math when one really just has a “mathy” argument that depends on shaky premises.

J. J. Ramsey · Feb 4, 2025 · full quote
In Rootclaim’s most recent COVID origins analysis, the single strongest piece of evidence is “12 nucleotides clean insertion,” which they claim is 20x more likely in lab leak (after out-of-model correction). [...] So, they do not have any evidence that, across all cases when rese…

viking_math · Jan 10, 2026 · full quote

Wildly divergent results

Critics also emphasize that real Bayesian exercises on COVID origins have produced extremely different answers from the same general evidence base. They argue that this track record shows the method gives an undeserved illusion of certainty on a large, messy, one-off event rather than settling the dispute.

Both look at the same data set. Both use Bayesian reasoning. One says 100,000,000-1 lab leak and one says somewhere between 10,000-1 and 10,000,000-1 zoonosis. [...] even with this sort of methodological agreement, they end up about as far apart as the Earth to the Andromeda gala…

Scott Sumner · Aug 16, 2024 · full quote
six independent Bayesian analyses of the same evidence spanned 23 orders of magnitude [...] demonstrating that Rootclaim's 'heroic Bayesian analysis' cannot resolve disagreements - too much evidence, too hard to quantify.

ACX Index · Mar 28, 2024 · full quote
While everyone else tries “pop Bayesianism” and “Bayes-inspired toolboxes”, Rootclaim asks: what if you just directly apply Bayes to the world’s hardest problems? There’s something pure about that, in a way nobody else is trying. Unfortunately, the reason nobody else is trying th…

Scott Alexander · Mar 28, 2024 · full quote
Moreover I am not convinced that this Bayesian calculation is even an appropriate way to estimate the relative posterior probability of Z and LL; it just seemed fair that after criticizing Rootclaim's calculations at length I should make an attempt at it myself. I think the numer…

Eric Stansifer · Dec 18, 2023 · full quote
Still, this is faint praise for a method that hoped to be able to resolve these kinds of disagreements.

Scott Alexander · Mar 28, 2024 · full quote

Middle ground

Structured aid, not proof

Some participants treat Bayesian analysis as a useful aid for making assumptions legible or for changing one's mind, while denying that current applications amount to objective proof. They portray it as improvable and potentially helpful, but only if used cautiously and with awareness of hidden judgment calls.

That is, this type of informal Bayesian estimate is useful as part of a ritual for changing your own mind, when done carefully. That requires a significant degree of self-composure, a willingness to change one's mind, and a high degree of justified confidence n your own mastery o…

David Manheim · Feb 19, 2024 · full quote
Don’t give up so easily! We as a society have spent approximately 0% of our collective decision-making resources on explicit Bayesian reasoning. Just because Rootclaim used Bayesian methods and then lost a debate doesn’t mean those methods will never work. [...] I’m optimistic th…

Michael Dickens · Apr 3, 2024 · full quote
For example, we know from years of dealing with probabilistic inference that it is highly unintuitive, and it is a challenge to translate to human language. We therefore focused more on an intuitive understanding of the evidence, with probabilistic inference used only as a backgr…

Ben · Feb 18, 2024 · full quote
In practice, we were surprised to see both judges found probabilistic inference to be the best way to reach a decision. We of course agree, but had we known this to be the case, we would’ve focused our efforts on explaining how to do probabilistic inference correctly, describing …

Ben · Feb 18, 2024 · full quote

Likelihood without certainty

Another nuanced view is that comparative-likelihood reasoning can say which origin story looks more plausible, yet still fall short of settling the question. These quotes stress that the evidence may support a leading hypothesis while remaining insufficient for certainty about the virus's exact path into humans.

There are two types of evidence, broadly speaking, we can bring to bear on this question. The first is epidemiological – looking at the earliest cases of COVID including the strains of virus with which they were infected, and data on the virus (such as in waste water) in the loca…

Steven Novella · Mar 4, 2026 · full quote
The origins of COVID-19 remain uncertain. A lab-associated incident is plausible; so is natural spillover.

Renée DiResta · Jun 23, 2026 · full quote
I also demonstrate clear evidence of bias among the earliest available sequences, and explain why the root of the SARS-CoV-2 tree cannot be conclusively resolved with the current data.

Jesse Bloom · Jun 9, 2025 · full quote

Insights

Across the quotes, the hardest part is usually not Bayes' rule itself but deciding what counts as relevant data and how to estimate conditional probabilities.
Both sides repeatedly invoke uncertainty: supporters say posterior odds communicate it clearly, while critics say numerical posteriors can hide how much remains unknown.
Many pro quotes defend Bayesian analysis as a general framework, while many anti quotes target specific applications as subjective, underinformed, or mis-specified.
Several participants distinguish between ranking hypotheses and definitively proving origins, with even some Bayesian-friendly quotes conceding the exact path may never be known for sure.
Missing access to underlying information appears as a recurring constraint across skeptical and undecided quotes, including from sources that say one hypothesis currently looks more plausible.

Supporters describe Bayesian analysis as the most coherent way to compare lab-leak and zoonotic hypotheses, combine many evidence streams, and update beliefs transparently as the record changes. Opponents counter that incomplete data, composite hypotheses, and subjective likelihood assignments keep current Bayesian exercises from being reliable settlement tools and can generate false precision. The debate therefore turns not only on the origin evidence itself, but on whether that evidence can be formalized well enough for Bayes to deliver more than a structured but contestable judgment.

Cast your vote:

Results (143 votes):

Total (143 votes)

For 68 (48%) Abstain 6 (4%) Against 69 (48%)

For (67)

Michael Shermer
Skeptic founder; science writer and columnist

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

This is still a viable conspiracy theory that could be true. As far as I'm concerned, it's more likely to be true than the wet market origins. So, I think that's why, again during COVID, what I would have liked to see is our public policymakers and p...
more AI Verified source (Jul 9, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Argumend Team
Editorial team behind Argumend, a critical-thinking and argument-analysis platform.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

You can watch this play out on genuinely unresolved questions like COVID's origins, where the honest position is an explicit probability that shifts as withheld evidence becomes available — not a flag planted on one side.
AI Verified source (Jun 29, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Jasper Blank
LessWrong author writing on claim graphs and Bayesian evidence aggregation

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The core Bayesian formula. It allows us to calculate what our hypothesis H should be given the evidence E. The only problem with this formula is that it can not easily integrate multiple pieces of evidence. For that we will need to do a slight rewrit...
more AI Verified source (Jun 16, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Quantifying Evidence for Competing Biomedical Hypotheses using Large Language Models and Bayesian Analysis
2026 bioRxiv preprint on LLM-assisted biomedical hypothesis comparison using Bayesian analysis.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Here, we introduce KM-GPT-DCH, an algorithm that combines co-occurrence methods with large language models (LLMs) to develop a transparent and reproducible literature-based algorithm to compare controversial hypotheses using a structured scoring appr...
more Unverified source (Jun 5, 2026) 1 of 9

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Bob Morris, MD, PhD
Epidemiologist and writer at the University of Washington School of Public Health; author of The Blue Death

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Throughout the exchange I returned repeatedly to the same request: assign probabilities to the six propositions and multiply them together.
AI Verified source (Apr 15, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Joshua Brooks
Substack commenter on Bayesian analysis of COVID-19 origins

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Seems to me a complete Bayesian treatment would require explicit probability assessments, or at least sensitivity tests, for the full sequence [...] I can't see how a full Bayesian analysis wouldn't integrate, or at least sensitivity-test, these beha...
more AI Verified source (Mar 31, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Marginal Revolution
Economics and public affairs blog covering research, policy, and current events.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

After correcting a fundamental error in Bayesian reasoning, the results presented in that paper imply larger likelihood for a single introduction, reducing the plausibility of the wet-market zoonosis account of Covid’s origins.
AI Verified source (Mar 31, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Michael B. Weissman
Physicist, Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Using only the data, model, and simulations of P2022 itself, I show that once a basic logic error is fixed the P2022 approach implies that a single successful spillover of SARS CoV-2 was more likely than a double successful spillover pair. The EJW pa...
more AI Verified source (Mar 30, 2026) 1 of 7

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
EJW Audio
Econ Journal Watch podcast page covering scholarly debate on COVID-19 origins

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Weissman uses a simple analogy to explain the error. Correcting the error using the data, model, and simulations of the original paper reverses the implication of the analysis-the single-introduction likelihood becomes greater than the two-introducti...
more AI Verified source (Mar 29, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Washington Examiner
U.S. news publication covering politics, policy, and public affairs.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Ridley described his argument as a "good old Bayesian thing, you add up all the probabilities until you get to a final result," or a court case in which a jury reaches the most reasonable conclusion.
AI Verified source (Mar 20, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Matt Ridley
British science writer and peer

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Instead, Ridley described his argument as a "good old Bayesian thing, you add up all the probabilities until you get to a final result," or a court case in which a jury reaches the most reasonable conclusion.
AI Verified source (Mar 20, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Steven Novella
Yale neurologist and science communicator

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

There are two types of evidence, broadly speaking, we can bring to bear on this question. The first is epidemiological – looking at the earliest cases of COVID including the strains of virus with which they were infected, and data on the virus (such ...
more AI Verified source (Mar 4, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Econ Journal Watch
Academic journal publishing scholarly comments, including 2026 work on Bayesian reasoning and COVID-19 origins

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

An influential article claimed that Bayesian analysis of the molecular phylogeny of early SARS-CoV-2 cases indicated that the likelihood that two successful introductions to humans had occurred was greater than the likelihood that just one had occurr...
more AI Verified source (Mar 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
John Janik
Physicist and Substack author writing on COVID-19 origins and Bayesian analysis

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

The Math Doesn’t Lie: A Bayesian Analysis of COVID-19’s Origin
AI Verified source (Feb 28, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Andrew Gold
Host of the Heretics podcast.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Shermer uses Bayesian reasoning to distinguish real conspiracies from speculation—showing why even die-hard skeptics must update their views when hard evidence emerges.
AI Verified source (Feb 7, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Department of Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute
Academic department at the European University Institute

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Examples from the pandemic—the debate over covid origins and expert guidance on public health measures—will be used to (i) illustrate how Bayesian inference works, (ii) highlight shortcomings in expert reasoning, and (iii) call attention to the poten...
more AI Verified source (Jan 14, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
European University Institute
European postgraduate and postdoctoral teaching and research institute

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes For and says:

Bayesian probability provides a natural and intuitive framework for characterising and communicating uncertainty. Bayesian analysis simply applies the laws of probability to evaluate which hypothesis is more plausible in light of whatever relevant in...
more AI Verified source (Jan 14, 2026) 1 of 2

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate

Abstain (6)

Against (68)

Daniel Engber
Science journalist and senior editor at The Atlantic

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

The origins of the coronavirus pandemic remain contested; the evidence is incomplete.
AI Verified source (Jul 7, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Cory Franklin
Retired intensive care physician

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

The origin of COVID is still uncertain.
AI Verified source (Jun 24, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Lawfare
National security and legal analysis publication covering U.S. intelligence, law, and public policy

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

The origins of COVID-19 remain uncertain. A lab-associated incident is plausible; so is natural spillover. China’s obstruction has made the truth harder to establish, and scientific opinions vary.
AI Verified source (Jun 23, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Renée DiResta
Georgetown professor and Lawfare editor

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

The origins of COVID-19 remain uncertain. A lab-associated incident is plausible; so is natural spillover.
AI Verified source (Jun 23, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Richard Ngo
AI researcher and writer on Bayesian epistemology and rationality

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

In my post “Why I’m not a Bayesian”, I argued that the Bayesian approach of assigning credences to propositions with binary truth values only works in simple and restricted domains. Instead, I claimed, a better approach to epistemology is to assign d...
more AI Verified source (Jun 9, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
The FLF Team
Future of Life Foundation team

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

Six independent Bayesian analyses of the same evidence spanned 23 orders of magnitude. [...] all this information is still incredibly difficult to navigate, interrogate, and use to inform one’s beliefs.
AI Verified source (Jun 4, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Lab Leaks, Black Holes, and Eggs: Epistemic Case Study Competition
2026 LessWrong/FLF case-study post comparing COVID-19 origins, black-hole, and egg debates.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

Over 15 hours of structured argument, two smart people marshalled epidemiological data, viral genetics, Bayesian inference, and institutional analysis to reach opposite conclusions. Two expert judges ruled decisively for zoonosis. Six independent Bay...
more AI Verified source (Jun 4, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
James E. Erdman III
Senior Operations Officer at the Central Intelligence Agency and 2026 Senate COVID origins whistleblower witness

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

The COVID origin analysis was an exercise in anchor bias. Instead of gathering data, drawing conclusions, and writing multiple products based on the data, the analysts worked from a binary choice: lab incident or natural origin.
AI Verified source (May 14, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Valentin Bruttel
Molecular immunologist at the University of Würzburg.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

This post is like insisting that earth is flat because you and some friends took some photos on which the horizon looks flat, then insisting that others should run a bayesian analysis based only on these 5 pieces of easily manipulatable evidence.
AI Verified source (Apr 16, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Peter Miller
COVID-19 origins researcher and Rootclaim debate participant

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

Weissman prefers a Bayesian approach, where you average over counterfactual realities, where one detail could have been different. [...] This process of averaging over different possibilities can go on forever, and no one agrees on which counterfactu...
more AI Verified source (Apr 6, 2026) 1 of 2

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
Alan B Franklin
USDA wildlife scientist

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

The competing hypotheses on the origins of SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogen responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic – have been hotly debated in the scientific literature and popular media, especially with respect to the hypothesis that SARS-Cov-2 originated ...
more AI Verified source (Mar 30, 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
COVID's origins: what we do and don't know
Nature Comment article on COVID-19 origins published February 24, 2026.

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

In the 78-page document, we determined that most of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence supports the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 has a zoonotic origin, meaning that it came from an animal.
Unverified source (Feb 24, 2026) 1 of 7

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate
COVID-19 Global Risk Assessment- Version 9
WHO rapid risk assessment

I am this person! Add a sourced quote Report comment

votes Against and says:

While available information is insufficient to definitively conclude the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the independent assessment of SARS-CoV-2 origins report (June 2025) published by the Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) r...
more AI Verified source (Feb 2026)

added 1mo ago

Choose a list of delegates

to vote as the majority of them.

Unless you vote directly.

Delegate

Loading more opinions...

More h/covid-19-origins votes

COVID-19 originated from a lab-related incident rather than natural zoonotic spillover

The clustering of early cases around the Huanan market reflects where the COVID-19 virus emerged, not just where testing looked

Back