🍎 to 🍎
This (left) million to one estimate of likelihood of natural origin to lab leak from @jfischman is incorrect
In 2012 Klotz & Sylvester (right) estimated an 80% change of a lab leak pandemic based on simple assumptions
scientificamerican.com/article/its-mu…
thebulletin.org/2012/08/the-un…
This (left) million to one estimate of likelihood of natural origin to lab leak from @jfischman is incorrect
In 2012 Klotz & Sylvester (right) estimated an 80% change of a lab leak pandemic based on simple assumptions
scientificamerican.com/article/its-mu…
thebulletin.org/2012/08/the-un…
The fact that COVID-19 first broke out in a city housing one of the world's few high-level labs engaged in bat coronavirus research means a lab leak necessarily must be on the list of possible origins until it's conclusively refuted, regardless what theoretical arguments are made
The CDC current says that 15% to 70% of COVID-19 cases may be asymptomatic, with a best guess of 30% (deets below)
So if there was a lab leak, there is a meaningful chance that the leak would have been unknown to the lab or the individual(s) who may have been a vector
So if there was a lab leak, there is a meaningful chance that the leak would have been unknown to the lab or the individual(s) who may have been a vector
Can someone explain the GISAID accession numbering format to me? eg, EPI_ISL_402127
Specifically, what do each of these mean?
EPI_ISL
40
2127
@R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan
Specifically, what do each of these mean?
EPI_ISL
40
2127
@R_H_Ebright @Ayjchan
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
