I haven’t watched much of that debate, but my understanding is that the main points were:
wet market cases
genetic sequence analysis
(1) is stupid because the data collection and reporting was biased, with an institution (the Chinese gov) that’s known to lie and cover up data regularly having its finger on the scales. Yes, if you only report test data from one area, you only get cases from that area, amazing.
(2) is stupid because none of the people involved had the technical understanding required to even interpret papers on the topic.
[genetic sequence analysis] is stupid because none of the people involved had the technical understanding required to even interpret papers on the topic.
The two judges were:
Will van Treuren, a pharmaceutical entrepreneur with a PhD from Stanford and a background in bacteriology and immunology.
Eric Stansifer, an applied mathematician with a PhD from MIT and experience in mathematical virology.
Do you think the judges lack technical understanding to interpret papers on genetic sequence analysis, or do you not count the judges as “involved”, or both, or something else?
It has 3 parts: the Wuhan market cases, genetic analysis, and talking about Bayesian statistics. I searched for “government” and “selection bias” and “CCP” and didn’t get any results in the article. What specifically do you want me to talk about here that I didn’t already say?
Overall, I think the post sucks, but some of the comments are decent, like this and this. Peter’s arguments wrt biased data seem worthless.
I haven’t watched much of that debate, but my understanding is that the main points were:
wet market cases
genetic sequence analysis
(1) is stupid because the data collection and reporting was biased, with an institution (the Chinese gov) that’s known to lie and cover up data regularly having its finger on the scales. Yes, if you only report test data from one area, you only get cases from that area, amazing.
(2) is stupid because none of the people involved had the technical understanding required to even interpret papers on the topic.
Thus, I don’t have much respect for that debate.
The two judges were:
Do you think the judges lack technical understanding to interpret papers on genetic sequence analysis, or do you not count the judges as “involved”, or both, or something else?
Both.
What’s your take on Scott’s post?
It has 3 parts: the Wuhan market cases, genetic analysis, and talking about Bayesian statistics. I searched for “government” and “selection bias” and “CCP” and didn’t get any results in the article. What specifically do you want me to talk about here that I didn’t already say?
Overall, I think the post sucks, but some of the comments are decent, like this and this. Peter’s arguments wrt biased data seem worthless.