To capture the burdensome detail of this scenario, can you unpack your probability estimates for each step—conditional on the previous—and any reasoning?
Using made-up numbers for an example:
The report will be issued by the end of August (95%) [usually I wouldn’t worry much about this, but it’s crucial for trading decisions!]
The report will present a definite conclusion (40%) [I feel this is a high estimate, but expresses my ignorance]
The conclusion will be “lab leak” (80%) [leaning heavily on the conditional on earlier steps, hard to honestly and definitely rule out]
The virology community will be seen to have misled the public (33%) [when in this whole pandemic has epistemic vice been publicly recognised or even understood? But blame games are easier]
Fauci will (be forced to) resign (50%)
A senate committee will question Fauci about gain-of-function research (75%) [maybe 30% even without all the conjunctions]
...and subpoena Twitter and Facebook re censorship of the lab leak hypothesis (20%) [another conjunction, and kinda off-topic from virology]
Causing a crisis of faith in the medical establishment which will drive structural reform (1%) [specific reforms to GoF research seem likely, but I’d be (happily) shocked by reforms that address the underlying problems]
And independently,
A new variant appears, in 2021 (80%)
which is best addressed by a third or additional or different vaccine dose (30%) [seems hard to approve, then produce and distribute at scale in the relevant time frame, but vaccines are great]
This is just way way way too many conjunctions. I get p=0.0075, a little less than one percent, without the structural reform clause or new variant—but I’d love to see your numbers.
If you list a bunch of single events you get way to many conjunctions. There are however alternative ways. Someone might win a court case to unredacted the part of Fauci’s emails that’s about the lab leak theory and the plans to fight it.
The senate might create their own committee regardless of what the intelligence community report says and possibly even earlier.
The report will be issued by the end of August (95%) [usually I wouldn’t worry much about this, but it’s crucial for trading decisions!]
As far as timing goes, I don’t think the loss of trust will happen in parallel with the report being released. It’s the start of more questions being asked.
A new variant appears, in 2021 (80%)
Virus constantly mutate so whether or not you define something as a new variant is a matter of definition. The Delta that we have right now manages to have r>1 in the US, UK and Germany despite it being summer.
...and subpoena Twitter and Facebook re censorship of the lab leak hypothesis (20%) [another conjunction, and kinda off-topic from virology]
Given that Fauci and Farrar seem to be very directly responsible for the censorship of Twitter and Facebook happening when it did happen. It might be off-topic from virology but it’s far from offtopic from virologists.
To capture the burdensome detail of this scenario, can you unpack your probability estimates for each step—conditional on the previous—and any reasoning?
Using made-up numbers for an example:
The report will be issued by the end of August (95%) [usually I wouldn’t worry much about this, but it’s crucial for trading decisions!]
The report will present a definite conclusion (40%) [I feel this is a high estimate, but expresses my ignorance]
The conclusion will be “lab leak” (80%) [leaning heavily on the conditional on earlier steps, hard to honestly and definitely rule out]
The virology community will be seen to have misled the public (33%) [when in this whole pandemic has epistemic vice been publicly recognised or even understood? But blame games are easier]
Fauci will (be forced to) resign (50%)
A senate committee will question Fauci about gain-of-function research (75%) [maybe 30% even without all the conjunctions]
...and subpoena Twitter and Facebook re censorship of the lab leak hypothesis (20%) [another conjunction, and kinda off-topic from virology]
Causing a crisis of faith in the medical establishment which will drive structural reform (1%) [specific reforms to GoF research seem likely, but I’d be (happily) shocked by reforms that address the underlying problems]
And independently,
A new variant appears, in 2021 (80%)
which is best addressed by a third or additional or different vaccine dose (30%) [seems hard to approve, then produce and distribute at scale in the relevant time frame, but vaccines are great]
This is just way way way too many conjunctions. I get p=0.0075, a little less than one percent, without the structural reform clause or new variant—but I’d love to see your numbers.
If you list a bunch of single events you get way to many conjunctions. There are however alternative ways. Someone might win a court case to unredacted the part of Fauci’s emails that’s about the lab leak theory and the plans to fight it.
The senate might create their own committee regardless of what the intelligence community report says and possibly even earlier.
As far as timing goes, I don’t think the loss of trust will happen in parallel with the report being released. It’s the start of more questions being asked.
Virus constantly mutate so whether or not you define something as a new variant is a matter of definition. The Delta that we have right now manages to have r>1 in the US, UK and Germany despite it being summer.
Given that Fauci and Farrar seem to be very directly responsible for the censorship of Twitter and Facebook happening when it did happen. It might be off-topic from virology but it’s far from offtopic from virologists.