Levin does make some disturbing mistakes in his introduction. I understand that he is an economist, but this is sloppy because this is easy to check. WIV1 and WIV16 were not found in the old Mojiang copper mine, but a long way away.
"The most closely related bat viral strains (WIV1 and WIV16) exhibit similarity of about 96% to the SARS-CoV genome; those strains were cultured from samples collected at an abandoned mine in Yunnan province, about 1500km from Guangzhou."
It's not that important. Just a small nuisance. Still reading it. Heavy stuff if you're not a mathematician, but luckily I already read the Bayesian analyses of Gilles Demaneuf, Alex Washburne en yours. I think I'll manage. It's yet another fresh view on the matter, which I think I will incorporate in the 2nd edition of the Wuhan Trilogy.
There is a nice saying in this regard, though: ‘Who lives with a gun, dies by the gun.’ Perhaps it was not so wise of Worobey et al to use a model they themselves do not know and understand the ins and outs of, on the assumption that people who do would not call them on it.
Levin does make some disturbing mistakes in his introduction. I understand that he is an economist, but this is sloppy because this is easy to check. WIV1 and WIV16 were not found in the old Mojiang copper mine, but a long way away.
"The most closely related bat viral strains (WIV1 and WIV16) exhibit similarity of about 96% to the SARS-CoV genome; those strains were cultured from samples collected at an abandoned mine in Yunnan province, about 1500km from Guangzhou."
Thanks. I do hope he prepares a revised version with these sorts of peripheral goofs cleared up.
It's not that important. Just a small nuisance. Still reading it. Heavy stuff if you're not a mathematician, but luckily I already read the Bayesian analyses of Gilles Demaneuf, Alex Washburne en yours. I think I'll manage. It's yet another fresh view on the matter, which I think I will incorporate in the 2nd edition of the Wuhan Trilogy.
There is a nice saying in this regard, though: ‘Who lives with a gun, dies by the gun.’ Perhaps it was not so wise of Worobey et al to use a model they themselves do not know and understand the ins and outs of, on the assumption that people who do would not call them on it.