The catch though, from a couple of times I've tried placing big bets on unlikely events, is that (most) bookmakers don't seem to accept them. They might accept a $100 bet but not a $1000 one on such odds. They suspect you have inside information. (The same happens I've heard if you repeatedly win at roulette in some casinos. Goons appear and instruct you firmly that you may only bet on the low-stakes tables from now on.)
Right, the EMH doesn't fully apply when sharks can't swoop in with bets large enough to overwhelm the confederacy of Georges. The odds bookies offer are a hybrid between a market and a democracy.
Right, April's rally wasn't due to "actually, everything is great now", it was due to "whew, it looks like the most apocalyptic scenarios we were seeing in March aren't likely, and there's a limit to how bad it's going to get".
You're right; the current plan condenses and overlaps the three phases in order to save a lot of time.
[EDIT: Probably not a valid counterexample; see steve2152's comment below]
Subways and other public transit aren’t present [in the list of superspreader events]
There was that bus in China, which also suggests that recirculated air might transfer aerosols (since many people sat in between the spreader and those who became infected).
Update on Diamond Princess: as of now, Wikipedia says that the death toll is 14, or 2% of the passengers who tested positive within the first month. However, the dead all seem to have been elderly (there were many elderly passengers, as expected for a cruise liner). More specifically, 11 of them were over 70, another was over 60, and two others were of undisclosed age due to family wishes.
I don't know how to adjust those results for demographics, and of course you can't use them to predict what would happen without hospital care. But it's a promising sign (relative to Wei'd predictions) that we've made it this far without anything obviously worse than what happened in Italy and Spain, and even those have seen far less than 0.1% of their population die. NYC is estimated to have a 20% rate of infection, and it too has had less than 0.1% of its population die (though this may rise somewhat, as their wave of cases crested fairly recently).
My point was that because of the reporting backlog, the spike and decrease in your table appeared sharper than they were; the actual curve was in line with other places.
Still, [Louisiana] seems like a clear explosion and fast peak, followed by a clear negative trend.
The date of test and the date reported give two very different pictures.
Not a doctor - just wild speculation - I'm not even going to do this myself without real medical advice - would aspirin possibly make a difference as it helps for 'normal' blood clots?
I forget, what's the current epistemic status of "don't use NSAIDs if you might have COVID-19"? I think they were recommended against for a while, then said to be fine. And I haven't seen them mentioned on LW recently.
Thank you, this is the sort of answer I was looking for- I'd naively had the prior that "no effect" was the only non-negligible possibility besides "positive effect".
Informed volunteers would be heroes, but I think there are enough heroes to make vaccines available months sooner and to save millions of lives. At least it should be in the Overton window to ask for a voluntary trial with the understanding that there's substantial risk.