a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment

I think it's quite generous to describe the Rees side as a risk assessment. It's not even 100 words, 3% of which don't pass spell-check and one is an ill-defined coining that does not exclude asteroid strike.

It mentions only two numbers, "thousands-even millions" of people, that's four [edit: 3] orders of magnitude of WAG.

Neither of the two risk factors he assessed, organized terrorist groups and individual bio-hackers, were behind the pandemic.

Rees argues with four sentences: one is an unsupported and non-measurable assertion, one is a novel definition, and two refer to his state of mind!

If providing evidence for one's beliefs is a sign of irrational bias, well, I guess that explains a lot.