User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?

As shown by Jon Stewart, common sense points to a scenario where SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing COVID-19, likely escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China (a lab leak). Conflicts of interest (COI) by some scientists, especially virologists, may have prevented common sense from being timely reflected in the investigations into the origin of COVID-19. This unique WP:COI editing issue, if unsolved, is bad for Wikipedia, which relies heavily on scientists and their publications to provide information on COVID-19.

A simple calculation
Historical precedents tell us that an outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease can occur either naturally or as a result of a lab leak. Using this knowledge, let us assume, without loss of generality, the probabilities for a novel coronavirus disease's origins to be:

$$\Pr\left(\text{natural origin}\right)=0.9$$

$$\Pr\left(\text{lab leak}\right)=0.1$$

Up to this point, a lab leak origin is highly unlikely (a 1 in 10 chance).

Now let $$E$$ be the event: an outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease is first detected near a lab that studies novel coronaviruses, and suppose that

$$\Pr\left(E|\text{natural origin}\right)=0.1$$

$$\Pr\left(E|\text{lab leak}\right)=0.9$$

The first conditional probability is likely overstated, while the latter one is likely understated, but give or take a few percentage points:

$$\Pr\left(E\right)=\Pr\left(E|\text{natural origin}\right)\times\Pr\left(\text{natural origin}\right)+\Pr\left(E|\text{lab leak}\right)\times\Pr\left(\text{lab leak}\right)=0.1\times0.9+0.9\times0.1=0.18$$

Now, what are the likelihoods for a novel coronavirus' origins, given that the event, $$E$$, has occurred? Bayes' theorem tells us that

$$\Pr\left(\text{natural origin}|E\right)=\frac{\Pr\left(E|\text{natural origin}\right)\times\Pr\left(\text{natural origin}\right)}{\Pr\left(E\right)}=\frac{0.1\times0.9}{0.18}=0.5$$

$$\Pr\left(\text{lab leak}|E\right)=\frac{\Pr\left(E|\text{lab leak}\right)\times\Pr\left(\text{lab leak}\right)}{\Pr\left(E\right)}=\frac{0.9\times0.1}{0.18}=0.5$$

After taking into account the event, $$E$$, the likelihood of a lab leak origin has substantially increased (a 1 in 2 chance).

But the specific numbers do not really matter. It is common sense that matters.

Conflicts of interest
So why aren't scientists using common sense in this case? As pointed out in January 2021, a scientist is, first of all, a human. They need respect, prestige, and money (funding) to continue their career.

Stuart Turville, an immuno-virologist at the Kirby Institute in Australia, said that the possibility of a lab leak "keeps us up at night" and "is the nightmare within nightmares". Why are some scientists, especially virologists, so afraid of this scenario, provided that they are supposed to be only "discoverers of the truth"? Is this phenomenon a pure consequence of the scientific methodology and/or established norms within the scientific community regardless of any conflict of interest?

Now, suppose there exists a significant non-scientific, human factor that incentivizes (consciously or unconsciously) these scientists (as humans) to focus more on "zoonotic origin with natural transmission to humans" and less on the "lab leak", then we have a general bias that is difficult to be self-corrected by the scientists only. Such a bias can already exist before all these scientific investigations and research papers are conducted and written.

Dr. Peter Daszak, a scientist and member of the WHO investigation team, stood out in this regard.

This unfortunate situation is bad for Wikipedia, which relies heavily on scientists and their publications to provide information on COVID-19.

Suggestions
One suggestion is to use WP:COMMONSENSE when editing articles on COVID-19 origins. A related suggestion is not to exclusively rely on "peer-reviewed scientific journal articles" for sourcing purposes. Administrators should avoid unfair treatment towards editors who strive to improve articles in accordance with WP:5P.

Note
Yes, this was a satirical piece for which I used an external link. If you are unsure who/what JS was making fun of, then this essay is probably not for you.