Scott Alexander responds to comments on his COVID-19 origins debate post, addressing criticisms and maintaining his support for the zoonosis theory.

Scott Alexander reviews a $100,000 debate on COVID-19 origins, where the zoonotic hypothesis unexpectedly won against the lab leak theory.

Scott Alexander argues against significantly updating beliefs based on single dramatic events, advocating for consistent policies based on pre-existing probability distributions.

Scott Alexander argues that the media's failure in coronavirus coverage was not about prediction, but about poor probabilistic reasoning and decision-making under uncertainty.

Scott Alexander analyzes a survey on readers' estimated probabilities of Kavanaugh's guilt, finding significant partisan differences and no clear consensus even with probabilistic thinking.

Scott asks readers for examples of popular, important, factual questions with high uncertainty and no clear 'responsible' position, to use when teaching probabilistic thinking, noting that his previous examples like global warming have become too polarized.