Yep, good catch, updated original. Mods, please reimport.
The vaccine is sufficiently effective 3 weeks later that you should get it 3 weeks later and resume your life as quickly as possible, at least in USA where there's enough to go around.
It is possible that 6 weeks is slightly better, but there's no way you'd give up those 3 weeks in between to get that effect even if it's true.
Yeah, I could more clear that we've made good changes, probably should. The change on ingredients is highly welcome but mostly us no longer stopping this from happening - we've stopped interfering. Which, yay?
He's kinda being wrong on the internet and highlighting it didn't seem like it would be helping?
Would be happy if this happened but definitely don't have the bandwidth to do it myself.
On reflection I decided I'm still at 10%, because a new strain might disrupt things and force Google to delay that policy.
[Mods: I've edited the original for this and for the Vitamin D question, please re-input.]
See latest Covid post, it's already much higher.
Not easy money because there's no way to bet. Scott presumably didn't know, but that doesn't make this 0%. I'd still be at 5% here.
Covid 4/15: Are We Seriously Doing This Again is in my drafts folder. Don't worry.
I would encourage you to make this a top-level post, I think there's a lot of very useful content here and I'd like to be able to comment / refer back to it. I'm especially interested in exploring why these particular areas have so much fraud relative to other areas slash whether this is true - one question is whether these are areas where we call people who lie or misrepresent out as committing fraud, whereas in other places maybe we don't as much do so.
The solutions on the other hand don't seem viable to me. E.g. having a system where it will tell ... (read more)
Very cool! This is an interesting example because it shows the system protecting the information in at least one case, but also shows that yes the government damn well tried to get the information, despite it being an information source that was deeply important to protect - if census info leaked and it got out our ability to do a census would be crippled.
I think this assumes that the system needs to be more robust than the current system, by a lot, plus also gain privacy. What I'm saying is that (1) yes we could do both if we cared enough, in theory, because we have proof by example but also (2) we don't need that level of robustness. We need something harder to fake than a Fake ID, where the QR code doesn't reveal who you are, so you can't be tracked beyond the existing ability to track cell phones.
There's a trade-off of security vs. privacy for sure, but right now the existing systems are lousy at best on both.
You can argue that risk is so low that bothering with vaccination for young people isn't worth it on selfish grounds and it is somehow more ethical then to not recommend it. I would strongly disagree due to long term risks of Covid, which are much higher than any risks of vaccination.
But also, blood clots are a disease of aging. Young people are at almost no risk of those. So even if the danger were real, which it isn't and even if there it was stupidly tiny, it would be orders of magnitude lower here.
So any argument to not recommend would have applied before anyway.
Cruz was speaking to a TV audience and was essentially right.
Ah, so it's effectively an Aella poll. She's got quite the Twitter poll business going. Her followers are definitely not as rationalist, although a lot more rationalist than average. Interesting.
I do not think everyone understands this, and I think if they did (in general understand such things) the world would look very different. Certainly those messaging do not think people understand it.
Walid Gellad is a relatively prominent Very Serious Person epidemiologist, but not one of the most known/influential, so makes sense you don't know, but he's one of the chorus of people doing the thing in quesiton.
The EMA report saying that there may be an association with very rare blood clots (which would still imply far more blood clots prevented than caused because Covid causes blood clots + math) came out after I hit the publish button. I agree that they then changed their tune from the pure explicit 'no evidence' line to a new line of Very Serious Person language designed to make it easier for everyone to resume.
When I say p-hacking, I mean that the search function was identical to what happens when people p-hack, with identical results - they're looking... (read more)
1400 deaths from about 70 million shots after lag, so even if that was 100% the vaccine, that would be a death rate of 1 in 50k. Seems well worth taking. But also if life expectancy vis about 80 years, that's about 30k days, so if they report deaths that day, and vaccinate a lot of elderly, isn't 1400 deaths on 70mm shots below baseline?
If you die after a flu shot no one thinks the flu shot kills you. If you happen to die after getting an mRNA shot they report it.
I'll check it out in more detail when I have time. Very plausible you're right.
Got another report it's misleading, so edited to simply link to source for now. Don't have bandwidth/energy to investigate further at the moment.
Just saw this now but if you link me to the info I'll put in the queue for next week.
The most important reason for an inflationary currency is to defeat sticky prices and money illusion. Destroying the value of savings over time is not the goal.
I think it's not clear which way it will go, depends on a bunch of unknown variables and where they land. The toy model can be tinkered with. But if it's actually more deadly too then yes deaths almost have to rise before falling.
No, this is on the basis of not trusting any claims from chinese scientists or studies because track record. So my heuristic is to watch what they do. If you can confirm that the top party officials got it, go for it. Otherwise, avoid.
I'm saying you should consider funding more basic research like mRNA vaccines and less bednets. Or setting up medical cruise ships for challenge trials in international waters. Or focusing on epistemics or even policy.
Also, if the pandemic wasn't obviously net bad that raises a lot of questions...
It is off because if buying 100x what we need speeds up our vaccinations by one week we still got a fantastic deal, so you buy way way way too much of everything then donate or sell the rest to vaccinate the world be a hero and shut off or slow mutations and save lives.
We should have almost literally spared no expense.
I can test that hypothesis a bit more robustly but I think this requires the delays be longer than they previously were.
Congratulations for fully participating and posting, even if you kept your initial predictions private. What I'd most encourage now is what my post did: explaining your reasoning, especially where you posted different numbers than myself/Scott, and thinking about how good your logic was in each case and what you think your best prediction was given your knowledge at the time.
also question 18 is missing here?
Did it myself, if I want a reimport I will say so explicitly.
Updated post to include a prediction for next week, which I forgot to do. Prediction was made at 9:10am eastern on Friday (so it involves seeing Thursday's numbers).
Nonzero helpful almost certainly, also almost certainly much less effective than glasses.
2. I still think that there's enough different ways this can fail that 30% is reasonable, and I dunno where the 29% comes from here? Presumably it would be higher than the 30% baseline for p(17|16), what am I missing? (And the way it resolves... (read more)
The Shilling Point in NYC is, as I have always understood it, indeed the clock (aka the information booth) at Grand Central. It's a much, much better choice than the ESB, and also what I expect others to expect here. Epistemic Status is "This Is Known" and this extends to the degree that I will literally say "Meet at the Schilling Point" when I want to indicate that's where we are meeting, which is not that uncommon as it often makes a lot of sense, and the majority of the time no one asks where I meant by that.
(Yes, Penn Station's train times display and ... (read more)
I had. Somehow I read it as someone who Vitalik motivated to do this, rather than Vitalik himself, presumably Vitalik doesn't care about 50k but it makes sense he'd care in theory anyway.
My takeaway was that there's a lot of things to be nervous about when betting even on an event that already happened, and that this was a pure supply-and-demand issue where people who knew the election outcome still had to overcome several risks and make it all worth doing, and you wouldn't do that in these ways for less than ~10-15% return minimum, and the other side had ... (read more)
That's not how I interpret it, because to me if Vitamin D works pre-hospitalization it could work on either mechanism - preventing infection or reducing severity. So that's another way it could be 'too late,' if it acts on an earlier stage. Are you thinking Scott is saying more like 45% to work if taken early because it's 25% to prevent infection and also 25% to reduce severity?
I remember reading it as the Gates Foundation doing a lot more than that, but it would fit with my look into Gates before if they only gave 4mm, at which point they don't get much credit here given their stated intentions.
I don't. Now that we have more visibility, people who know more, please say more.
This would potentially explain the disagreement - if taking lots of D requires K2 but no one's testing with K2 then all the huge correlations would be there but the interventions wouldn't work.
Corrected the wording to ensure it is definitely accurate. Speed premium among a lot of very strong claims that definitely happened and all that, but yeah, more careful would have been better.
The reason I use my own norms is mainly that I need to have unique rules about what politics is in/out of bounds, and in practice I've yet to strike down a post that isn't either obvious spam or way too political. Recent events likely moved me further towards free speech absolutism.
As for rapid testing, there's a lot of argument over how accurate they are. At least some of their 'inaccuracy' is actually by design slash useful, coming back negative on the less infectious and thus potentially making the test more useful. There's clearly arguments about... (read more)
Depends if you think the previous R0 calculations were based on getting the timing right, and how you think about what's acting on what. If this makes us update towards a much higher R0, then yes we are in more trouble rather than less trouble and it could end up here faster on net, whereas if we hold R0 as known then this slows things down.
Vaccine supply will be ready for them the moment the studies are done, so this year seems realistic for getting children vaccinated. Chances seem very high the vaccines work on children, with the caveat that they aren't as needed, of course.
It's months away but I see no reason we couldn't make a September deadline if that was something teachers needed in order to come back.
Wow that's... really, really weird, cause I remember reading it the other way. I took out the related paragraphs, and will let the graphs speak for themselves.
Strongly disagree with this. The honest cheerful price is sometimes $0, and if that's true you should say $0, and presumably then do the thing given you were asked for your price.
It's bad short term profit maximization but if you were purely doing short term profit maximization you never would have been inclined to bake the cake for free in the first place.
I actually think it's worth tracking: ConsensusBot should be a user, it should always update continuously to the public consensus prediction in its absence, and it shouldn't be counted as a prediction, so we can see what it looks like and how it scores.
And there should be a contest to see if anyone can use a rule that looks only at predictions, and does better than ConsensusBot (e.g. by deciding whose predictions to care about more vs. less, or accounting for systematic bias, etc).
The dangers of quick writing and internet sarcasm are real, but I think that me and Dr. Ivers are in agreement here and the statement was meant to reflect that.
Yes, that's complexity; see the SSC post that I linked to. You're right that I missed a letter.
It does look like you are correct. My math from that still had it in the low-mid 40s rather than 55%, but that depends on details. If it's 55%, as I've noted before, that makes it too fast for us to stop in time unless things change fast.
If points could be converted to money enough to motivate real predictions, I would expect a flood of people who do nothing but information cascade to bank points, and it's not obvious what to do about that. As it is, it felt (to me) like there was a tension between 'score points' and 'make good predictions or at least don't make noise predictions' and that felt like a dealbreaker.
The wording here makes me worry we're Goodharting on quantity of predictions. And the best way to predict the community prediction is to (of course) wait for others to predict first, then match them...