That's just mangling the definition of bioerror until one side loses or wins. At that point the bet is about what the judge thinks instead of what the bet is actually about. Since the bet is now up to the judge the smartest decision would be to decide against the ambiguous argument to encourage future betters to avoid making more ambiguous bets.
> By "bioerror", I mean something which has the same effect as a terror attack, but rises from inadvertance rather than evil intent.
I don’t think it’s a stretch. In an optimistic view, the current administration could be said to have inadvertently allowed things to get so bad. In a more pessimistic view, there is malice involved.
Agreed. I think the burden of proof would be on the person alleging an "inadvertent" mishandling of COVID when there's plenty of direct and circumstantial evidence to the contrary: blatant denialism, ridicule of basic preventive measures, assertions that the virus would "disappear," withholding of crucial information early in the outbreak, the list goes on. All of these intentional steps were taken by high US government officials, including the president.
