Bronx Zoo
Article
Bronx Zoo is a recurring venue in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between April 30, 2021 and April 09, 2024. The archive places it in contexts such as “Madison Grant , co-founder of the Bronx Zoo”; “https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/tiger-coronavirus-covid19-positive-test-bronx-zoo”. It most often appears alongside COVID, COVID-19, FDA.
Metadata
- Category: Venues
- Mention count: 2
- Issue count: 2
- First seen: April 30, 2021
- Last seen: April 09, 2024
Appears In
Related Pages
-
- COVID (2 shared issues)
-
- COVID-19 (2 shared issues)
-
- FDA (2 shared issues)
-
- S14 (1 shared issues)
-
- 2009 flu pandemic (1 shared issues)
-
- 2013-16 West African Ebola outbreak (1 shared issues)
-
- ACX (1 shared issues)
-
- Adam larson (1 shared issues)
-
- AI (1 shared issues)
-
- AI research (1 shared issues)
-
- Air (1 shared issues)
-
- Air (1 shared issues)
External Links
Source Context
Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.
The fact that Vogt’s first entry into the public sphere is rallying the public against anti-malaria measures leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth, as I’m sure it does for any of Mann’s Effective Altruist aligned readers. It would be one thing if Vogt were concerned about the detrimental impact of malaria on humans AND the detrimental impact of malaria prevention methods on bird life. But in subsequent chapters of Vogt’s biography, Mann goes out of his way to show that Vogt’s influences and contemporary members of the environmentalist milieu – for example, Madison Grant, co-founder of the Bronx Zoo, organizer of the United States national park system, and author of the charmingly named The Passing of the Great Race, beloved by Hitler – were, to put in mildly, extremely uninterested in the wellbeing of all humankind. Instead, they were obsessed by fears of an unchecked Malthusian population explosion, race mixing, and a resultant societal degeneration that could only be stopped by halting (read: starving out) population growth. Which people deserved to live in harmony with nature in the ensuing pastoral utopia and which would be relegated to the dustbin of history was not an exercise they left to the reader. Mann writes that Vogt, like his buddies, was "loudly scornful of the ‘unchecked spawning’ and ‘untrammeled copulation’ of ‘backward populations’ – people in India, he sneered, breed with ‘the irresponsibility of codfish.’"
Inline links: Madison Grant
Before going further, I recommend reading page 8 of the supplementary text of Worobey’s paper, titled “Robustness Of Statistical Test Results To Ascertainment Bias”, or pages 14-17, “Additional Data Related To Case Ascertainment Biases”, which explain all the reasons he thinks this isn’t true. I promise you aren’t the first person to think that maybe Worobey could be contaminated by ascertainment bias. If that still doesn’t help, Worobey talks more about his strategy for avoiding ascertainment bias here. Most important, he counted only cases from December; the market connection was discovered December 30 and added to diagnostic criteria January 3. This doesn’t mean bias is impossible - some of these points are people who caught COVID on December 31, but only got diagnosed January 4 after the new diagnostic criteria were added. But most cases are pre-criteria. And Worobey looked at various subsets of pre-criteria cases and found they were all at least as market-focused as the overall set. For example, he looked at the earliest COVID records in one Wuhan hospital system: 10 of these hospitals’ 19 earliest COVID-19 cases were linked to Huanan Market (∼53%), comparable both to Jinyintan’s 66% (of 41 cases) (4) and to the WHO-China report’s 33% of 168 retrospectively identified cases within Wuhan across December 2019 (1). Regarding cases at the Wuhan Central Hospital and HPHICWM, patients with a history of exposure at Huanan Market could not have been “cherry picked” before anyone had identified the market as an epidemiologic risk factor. Hence, there was a genuine preponderance of early COVID-19 cases associated with Huanan Market. Likewise, a study conducted January 2 (so not impacted at all by the January 3 criteria) found that 27 of 41 known patients had market links. Likewise, the first five cases were all detected in the market, and it doesn’t even make sense to talk about ascertainment bias for these. What is the Weissman paper that observeralt is talking about? It argues: if the pandemic started at the market, each seemingly non-market-linked case must ultimately derive from a market-linked case. Therefore, we should expect non-market-linked cases to require more steps than market-linked cases. Therefore, they should be further away. But if we look at the map above, we see that not-market-linked cases are closer to the market than market-linked cases. So something must be wrong, and that something might be ascertainment bias. (at least this is my interpretation of Weissman’s argument, which is more mathematical; read the paper to make sure I’m getting it right). This is a weirdly spherical-cow view of an epidemic, worthy of a physicist. It’s easy to think of reasons the linked-cases-should-be-closer rule might not hold. For example, suppose that on their lunch break, market vendors go have lunch at restaurants surrounding the market. They infect people in these restaurants, who then infect their friends and family. But these people never went to the market themselves. Now there are a bunch of non-market-linked cases immediately surrounding the wet market. But also - of all markets in Wuhan, Huanan sold the most weird wildlife. Suppose someone in the boonies gets a craving for raccoon-dog one day, their local convenience store doesn’t have it, so they hop on a bus and go downtown to the city’s main wet market. Then they get infected with COVID. Now there’s a wet-market-linked case in the boonies. In other words, we should expect two modes of spread: general geographic diffusion from the epicenter, and people from far away who made specific trips. If this still doesn’t seem obvious to you, consider - usually when COVID first arrived in America or Brazil or wherever, they were able to trace it back to a specific person from Wuhan who visited the country. If I was the first person in America to get COVID, I could usually say “Oh, it must have been my business meeting with Mr. Chin from Wuhan”. At the same time, if someone from the next town over from Wuhan got COVID, they probably couldn’t trace it back to a specific Wuhanite - everyone from Wuhan is coming and going so often that my town is just full of COVID in general. So I don’t think Weissman’s paper proves anything, and I think the general pattern of blue and orange dots suggests ascertainment bias wasn’t playing a role. So why does George Gao say that there was ascertainment bias? I looked for the direct source of the Gao quote and couldn’t find it; if someone else is able to, please let me know, since I’d be interested in exactly what he thinks about this. 1.10: Connor Reed / Gwern on cats Gwern wrote: Yes, I don't understand this (paraphrased) claim by Peter: > He also told the Mail that his cat got the coronavirus too, which is impossible. 'Impossible', thus implying the man was lying? I was under the impression that, quite aside from cats having tons of coronaviruses in general (FCoV being a particularly serious threat to young cats, which also seems to be a remarkable case study of the harms of the FDA), that it was not just not 'impossible' for domestic pet cats to get the coronavirus too, it was routine for them to get COVID-19, and even other cat species in *zoos* have tested positive and this was true very early in the COVID-19 pandemic and quite well publicized and well known (eg April 2020 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/tiger-coronavirus-covid19-positive-test-bronx-zoo ). This was a topic of interest to me at the time because I like cats and have a cat and was wondering what the implications of me being inevitably infected might be for my cat, and so I remember this quite well despite my general attempt to remain ignorant of as many COVID-19 matters as possible... And double-checking now to see if all of these reports were somehow false positives or faked, I continue to see everyone like the CDC stating that it is still totally possible and routine for cats in close contact with infected humans (you know, like a *pet* cat) to be infected with COVID-19: https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/covid-19/pets.html Given that Peter has supposedly spent years autistically researching every last detail and this detail in particular in order to discredit that British dude, I'm experiencing sudden Gell-Man Amnesia here about the rest of his claims, as well as the supposed experts evaluating Peter's claims if they didn't flag that (I have not checked). This is in the context of Connor Reed, a British man who claimed to have gotten COVID on November 25 - which, if true, would be surprisingly (though not impossibly) early according to the zoonosis narrative. Peter argued his story didn’t hold up, and one of his points centered around his claim that his cat might have caught COVID from him and died. Unfortunately, I mis-quoted Peter. I said Peter argued it was impossible for his cat to get COVID-19 (false). His actual statement was that it’s extremely rare for a cat to die of COVID-19. Peter, Gwern, and I then proceeded to get very confused about the exact claims and timeline, which I think is because Connor said totally different things in different interviews: In an interview with Wales Online on 2/4/2020, he said that "my kitten caught the feline coronavirus and developed pneumonia and died, but I don't think I caught it from her. I think that was just coincidence.”