Probability is bound to be between 0 and 1. It's a bit hard to fit an exponential in there.

Still a period in which the increase in probability function could exhibit an exponential rate of growth though right?

At 1 we are all dead as well right?

In principle, yes.

In practice: in order for exponential growth (or any growth) to happen, things must have been smaller in the past.

Do you want to argue that the risks were so much in the past?

Eating insects is probably about as dangerous as it was ten years ago or twenty years ago. Not all that much has changed, or has it?

If more people are eating insects than before that might increase risks. Are you suggesting that the growth in number of people who are eating insects has been or will be exponential?

Or are you suggesting that risks are growing (exponentially!) from other factors?

So the counter argument you postulated(seemingly to undermine the validity of my argument with a tangential non-sequitur of math term application purism) fails on a principle basis upon further examination, yet we are persisting the thread with definitively unprovable practical application arguments that result from an (assumed) lack of objective related research and the reality that we are discussing forecasting probabilities using reason.

At this point I have to wonder, do you have any vested interest in the insect as food industry? I see you have accumulated many points over a decade and YC is running a few horses in this race.

And we are discussing public health and possible pandemic initiators predicated on nascent scientific research here, no? Dismissal through obfuscation and fallacious intellectual undermining leveraging local social clout?