If Scott Alexander does not organize and bet at least $10,000 on a COVID origins debate which concludes before January 1st 2026, this market will be cancelled and all mana will be returned.
If such a debate is successfully organized and completed, this market will resolve based on the finalized results of that debate.
If neutral judges in a debate organized by Scott Alexander rule that COVID-19 most likely came from a laboratory release, this market resolves YES.
If neutral judges in a debate organized by Scott Alexander rule that COVID-19 most likely had a zoonotic origin, this market resolves NO.
In the case of a tie, such as a debate with two judges in which one rules for lab leak and one rules for Zoonosis, this market will be cancelled.
Context:
In his latest post based on the Rootclaim COVID Origins debate, Scott concludes by saying:
If it helps, I’m currently working out terms for a 6-digit lab leak bet of my own (no guarantee this will come to fruition, most of these fall apart in the resolution criteria stage). I feel bad for not being willing to answer every possible lab leak argument going forward, but hopefully offering lab leakers a few hundred thousand dollars if I’m wrong will be a suitable consolation prize.
For now, I’m still at 90-10 zoonosis.
In the Rootclaim debate, both sides put up $100,000 and then two neutral judges decided whether whether Covid-19 most likely originated from zoonosis or a lab leak from gain of function research. In the Rootclaim debate, both judges found in favor of Zoonosis.
It seems likely that a debate by Scott will follow a similar format, although perhaps he will have someone other than himself arguing for Zoonosis or the debate might be held in text form. A debate in any format organized by Alexander with at least $10,000 of his own money will resolve this market.
I will not trade on this question.
For a multichoice version of this question which will not resolve N/A in any scenario, see:
1,000
3.00@PeterBuyukliev No, I actually think that it's more likely than not lab origin would be favored (see outcome of the Soho Forum debate between Matt Ridley and Stephen Goldstein or Robert Kadlec's latest white paper). I want to trade on other markets.
Matt Ridley v Stephen Goldstein debate a few weeks ago at the Soho Forum. A fairly pro-lab origin crowd. Before the debate 51.43% of the audience believed SARS-CoV-2 had a lab origin. That shifted to 64.76% after the debate.
https://www.youtube.com/live/KVj1awTgb1s?si=dl7_8MFhHX-hJiH3
Further details of 2018 WIV thesis, titled 'Evolutionary Mechanism of Adaptation of Bat SARS-like Coronaviruses to Host Receptor Molecules'
Key Findings: WIV is holding back 5 bat ACE2 sequences from Yunnan — 3 likely from Mojiang and 2 from Chuxiong. https://x.com/TheSeeker268/status/1805984637359206556?t=6N_KPsXdE5-o64XR9tow4g&s=19
Reasonable essay by Chan. Part 4 addressing the short-comings of the arguments for Huanan Seafood Market origin are particularly good.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/opinion/covid-lab-leak.html
Ralph Baric's testimony to the oversight committee. Baric favors zoonotic spillover but not from the Huanan Seafood Market (the theory Scott appears to favor based on the Rootclaim debate). In Baric's view the outbreak occurred earlier around October 2019. He warned researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology they should do their research in BSL-3 but they continued making chimeric viruses in the more risky BSL-2 labs, can't rule out lab origin.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/ralph-baric-wuhan-lab-leak
@benshindel Hmmm, I've historically been skeptical of 50% resolutions because I think they distort the price, but we are entering a brave new world where N/A resolutions will be more complicated because of cash prizes, so that's worth considering.
Would anyone object to this alteration to the rules?
@Joshua we had this discussion in the previous debate market. It makes a very big difference in how aggressively you can bet
@Joshua https://manifold.markets/chrisjbillington/would-you-object-if-the-rootclaim-d there was poll about it even. I agree in general 50% is better but changing the question now ends up being a rug pull for the people who bet under 50% thinking that it would resolve to N/A in case of a draw.
@benshindel Again this would be a big change in the resolution criteria which wouldn't be fair at all to people who bet aggressively under 50% with the original description in mind. You can just make a new market that resolves to 50%.
@DavidKochanov I mean… I don’t think a potential 50% resolution would meaningfully change betting strategy in this market tbh… not quite sure I understand why you think that
@benshindel Let's say you think that p of judges saying it is zoonosis is 0.19, p of judges saying is lab leak is 0.01 and and p of all other outcomes is 0.8 when would you buy NO with the NA resolution criteria and when would you buy NO when it resolves to 50% in 0.8 of cases
New essay from Yuri Deigin on COVID-19 origins.
Michael Weissman's Bayesian analysis that Scott mentions but says he hasn't read as yet.
A rebuttal of some mathematical claims about early Covid-19 made by Scott Alexander.
https://arguablywrong.home.blog/2024/04/09/how-likely-is-it-for-covid-to-establish-itself/
As evidence against an earlier introduction, Scott also presents a doctored version of Fig. 3E from Pekar et al.'s "Timing the SARS-CoV-2 index case in Hubei province", 2021. It seems this misleading image was used for the Rootclaim debate.
https://twitter.com/nizzaneela/status/1777989261817508165?t=iKdlIodfWEfzFVWxGlVtrA&s=19
I don't usually go around telling people but... it was me. I was just trying to make a sourdough starter and then things got out of hand. Sorry for ruining the debate (and for all the death and stuff).