Maybe the market is predicting that R0 will be >1, but isolation and contact tracing will be enough to prevent a wider outbreak?
What about the combo: a tic-tac-toe board position, a tic-tac-toe board position with X winning, and a tic-tac-toe board position with O winning. Would it give realistic positions matching the descriptions?
That’s fair. Maybe I was more trying to get at the chances that current live orgs will develop this know-how, or if it would require new orgs designed with that purpose.
Does an organization’s ability to execute a “pivotal act” overlap with Samo Burja’s idea of organizations as “live players”? How many are there, and are there any orgs that you would place in one category and not the other?
Do you prefer D over E? I do.
Is this backwards? Seems like it should be E over D.
Galeev mentions Navalny in his newest thread about power dynamics and how they might change in response to the current crisis. It’s a long thread so you’ll need to scroll down quite a bit to see the section on Navalny. Galeev doesn’t portray him in a very positive manner.
Yeah, I like his prediction that if Europe stops buying Russian energy it could force Russia into greater economic dependence on China. I’m wondering how likely Europe is to actually move away from Russian energy though. It sounds like the obvious thing to do, but I don’t know from a practical standpoint how easy it would be without causing a lot of disruption in the short to medium term. I doubt they can just flip a switch and convert to new energy sources overnight, especially in Eastern Europe which is heavily reliant on Russian supply.
I think the longer the war lasts, the more likely it is for Europe to move away from Russian energy. But if the war ends relatively quickly, the motivation to do so might fade away due to economic considerations as well as general inertia/political difficulty when trying to make substantial changes.
There is also the consideration that the earlier you pick a partner, you get to enjoy the benefits of having a partner for longer.
Thanks for the link. I found it well thought out and plausible, but it seems strongly based on the assumption that Russia will remain isolated from the global financial system for the next 5-20 year timeframe discussed in the article. Is that a reasonable assumption? Although Russia is a pariah now, once the hostilities have ended I would guess the sanctions will be lifted over time, since they are also expensive for the West to maintain.
This article by Tomas Pueyo looks at Russia from a historical and geographical perspective. It makes the case that much of Russia’s foreign policy is based on the need to protect Moscow, which is in the middle of the vast Eurasian plain with no natural barriers for defense, and so is vulnerable to attack from all directions. So Russia’s strategy has been to expand as much as possible, to either control directly the land where invasions might have otherwise come from (e.g. Siberia), or failing that, to at least create predictably controllable buffer states (the former Soviet republics) between them and their rivals. From that perspective, Ukraine may have been becoming too unpredictable as a buffer state recently, giving Russia an incentive to want to control the land directly.
#21′s response that “If a pill form was available… I would” might be related to needle phobia, although not explicitly stated.
When I’ve asked my Red Tribe friends their thoughts about the vaccines, they’ve generally given similar answers to your survey how they don’t trust the government, media, big pharma, etc. But I think the main underlying reason is just signaling which tribe they belong to. Early in the pandemic, Trump’s messaging was that covid was no big deal, just the flu, it will go away soon, etc. and this became the party line. For relatively young, healthy people, choosing to get the vaccine might be seen as disloyal to the tribe. So when they weighed these social costs against the seemingly negligible risk of death or serious illness, they chose their social identity over getting vaccinated. And as Matthew Barnett mentioned, they could easily come up with plausible sounding rationalizations like the ones from your survey.
This seems consistent with Zvi’s concept of Asymmetric Justice.
I’m not a lawyer, but their newest Terms of Service imply otherwise:
USE OF A VIRTUAL PRIVATE NETWORK (“VPN”) TO CIRCUMVENT THE RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH HEREIN IS PROHIBITED.
Not sure how willing and able they would be to enforce such a regulation, but that’s a different question. (Not legal advice!)
Any thoughts on if/when Polymarket might be available again in the US? I found their Compliance Update which says they are still looking to build a US product, but given the recent CFTC settlement it’s hard to tell how likely this is to happen.
Of course, one pleasingly meta way to get at this question would be to create a new prediction market asking “Will Polymarket be available in the US on [date]”, but I wonder if Polymarket would be willing to put up a market like this, since the regulators they are dealing with might not find it amusing.
I agree that attending large events is a type of risk compensation, and we may be referring to similar behavior patterns using different words here. But I’m trying to distinguish between these two types of infection:
Infections resulting from people going about their daily activities (e.g. getting exposed at work, in a store or restaurant, other small gatherings, etc.) Here, individuals might indeed change their behavior based on their own vaccination status and risk tolerance. But since Omicron is so widespread at this point, the probability that an infected person was vaccinated should be close to the base rate of vaccination among the overall population (although somewhat lower, since the vaccines still prevent some transmission of Omicron). In other words, P(vaccinated | type-1 infection) is a little less than P(vaccinated).
Infections resulting directly from attending large superspreader events where proof of vaccination was required. In this case, while P(vaccinated | type-2 infection) won’t be exactly 1 due to the possibility of fake vaccine ID cards or weak enforcement of the policy at the event, I think it would still be quite close to 1.
If type-2 infections are a high enough percentage of overall infections, this could make it look like vaccinated people are more likely to get infected (which would be true at the population level!) even though getting vaccinated makes it less likely for any individual to get infected (assuming their behavior after vaccination remains the same).
Apologies if much of this is obvious or redundant—I’m still trying to understand the gears behind this dynamic better myself. I agree there is likely a component coming from “vaccinated people take on more risk in general”, but I hadn’t considered that policies which only allow vaccinated people (to a first approximation) to attend large potentially-superspreading events could lead to increased transmission among the vaccinated relative to the unvaccinated, which could lead to negative perceived vaccine effectiveness, until seeing Peter’s post.
That may contribute as well, but I think Peter was implying that if enough cases overall take place during superspreader events where ~all of the attendees were vaccinated, vaccinated people may be more likely to test positive just because they were substantially more likely to be attending those superspreader events than unvaccinated people.
I also strongly upvoted for the same reasons. Very much looking forward to the results of the ELISA mucus test!
Bitcoin can only go as low as $0. Bitcoin could, in theory, go up not only to $100k but to $1 million or more.
I’m confused. In theory, $50k currently invested in VTI could also go to any of those values. Is there something I’m missing about the relative likelihood of different outcomes that would make Bitcoin the more attractive investment? I feel like there’s some Econ 101 lesson I’m forgetting here.
There’s no trade, since (as many people reminded me) Metaculus is not a prediction market and you can’t trade on its values, but there’s still a big contradiction with market prices here.
In this case, isn’t the trade to just use the info Metaculus provides to inform your trades elsewhere? In a way, that’s an advantage of having Metaculus in addition to money-based prediction markets—predictors at money-based vs. points-based prediction markets have different motivations for predicting, so they’re likely to be self-selected from different populations and may generate different, complementary predictions. Granted, for any individual question it would be easier to be able to trade directly in the money-based market, but I think there’s an overall benefit in having both types available.
Welcome, and thanks for making your first comment!
As a fellow scientist with decades of experience in the industry, I disagree with several of your claims.
First, you will never know if it really works until you run blinded clinical trials against a placebo. This is the only way to tell and that is why it’s required for any new drug/vaccine to be launched on the market.
Clinical trials are helpful for understanding whether a drug/vaccine works on the population level. But on the individual level, clinical trials are not the only way to tell. For example, you can just take an antibody test and see if it works.
You can’t just take a antibody test and see if it works.
Of course you can.
Even if there were the right antibody tests for these peptides
Anna Czarnota posted an initial protocol here. I haven’t tried it, but it seems reasonable and likely to provide useful information about one’s level of protection.
but without using rigorous scientific method, there could be many other factors why you could see a response. Like you were exposed already to the virus and didn’t know it.
The “rigorous scientific method” is not the only way to generate knowledge that allows individuals to update their priors. But setting that aside, the question of whether one’s immune response came from the vaccine or from previous exposure to the virus is not very relevant to one’s future decision making. Either way, the antibody test provides information about one’s current level of immunity, which one can use to update their risk tolerance and behaviors.
It feels like your comments are aimed at the question, “What is the best vaccine (or vaccines) to approve and mass produce for the general population?” which is a perfectly valid and important question. As things currently stand, this relies on the standard clinical trials/FDA approval process. But this process takes a long time and is prone to all sorts of delays and inefficiencies due to politics and organizational maze behaviors, during which the pandemic continues to spread. Realizing that, the radvac developers and many commenters here have been asking a different question: “What can individuals do now (or in a future pandemic) to mitigate their personal risk of being infected?”
Both questions are important, but the large organizations responsible for developing/approving new vaccines have very different incentives than individuals looking for ways to minimize their own risk of infection.