@nizzaneela.bsky.social
Reposted
A recent critique by Angus McCowan (i.e., "Nod") claims that the quantitative support for multiple SARS-CoV-2 introductions in our Pekar et al. 2022 is an “artifact” of "imbalanced" hypothesis testing.
Let’s take a closer look at why this argument doesn’t hold up.
🧵
arxiv.org/abs/2502.20076
Let’s take a closer look at why this argument doesn’t hold up.
🧵
arxiv.org/abs/2502.20076
Purported quantitative support for multiple introductions of SARS-CoV-2 into humans is an artefact of an imbalanced hypothesis testing framework
A prominent report claimed substantial support for two introductions of SARS-CoV-2 into humans using a calculation that combined phylodynamic inferences and epidemic models. Inspection of the calculat...
arxiv.org
March 1, 2025 at 9:55 PM
A recent critique by Angus McCowan (i.e., "Nod") claims that the quantitative support for multiple SARS-CoV-2 introductions in our Pekar et al. 2022 is an “artifact” of "imbalanced" hypothesis testing.
Let’s take a closer look at why this argument doesn’t hold up.
🧵
arxiv.org/abs/2502.20076
Let’s take a closer look at why this argument doesn’t hold up.
🧵
arxiv.org/abs/2502.20076