Previously: 2021 ACX Predictions B/S/H, 2021 ACX Results Analysis It’s that time again. Scott’s predictions are live and I am here for it. I also have a response in the works for a different ACX post, but that requires editing, and this doesn’t. I will play by Scott’s rules, since that’s only fair. For each question, there’s a five minute time limit, and checking prediction markets isn’t allowed until the prediction is locked. Checking financial markets is fine.
"28. Some new variant not currently known is greater than 25% of cases: 60%
Hold. So far we’ve had Alpha, Delta and Omicron within two years, so 60% seems reasonable."
"13. WHO will designate another Variant Of Concern by year's end (75%): HOLD
Sell to 70%. Feels high to me, I dunno."
Here is my case for these being more likely.
Mutations are a function of number of replications, and the graphs going vertical everywhere with Omicron mean there is a lot more COVID replicating out there* than there ever was with earlier strains. Pretty soon there is going to be a huge selection advantage to escape immunity gained by Omicron, and since apparently Omicron infection gives Delta immunity it won't just be Delta coming back.
Is there anything wrong with how I'm thinking about this?
I think we'll still be doing enough sequencing somewhere to catch something that shows up in 25% of cases, even as most people stop testing, and infections get much more mild.
Buy 28 to 70%.
I have a gut feeling WHO will want to keep talking about COVID to counter people probably being very over it and going back to life as usual, but less confident.
Remember that I force myself into bins of 50/60/70/80/90/95/99 (or the inverse of these) in order to make grading easier, so when you (for example) sell from 5% to 3% you're not necessarily disagreeing with me. I don't know if there's a better way to handle this; maybe next year I'll break this custom even though it would make it harder to compare to past cycles.
People seemed to think it would eventually converge on its most transmissible form. Sure, transmissibility is related to immune escape, and Omicron had a lot of immune escape. But that being said, just based on the physics and biology of viral reproduction, it seems like there has to be an overall transmissibility threshold. Otherwise, why doesn’t measles not have an R0 approaching 1000? or 10000? It’s had a lot of time to evolve.
So will we see variants with immune escape? Very likely. Will also they find an additional way to increase viral load significantly relevant to Omicron and thereby also replace Omicron and the most contagious strain? It just seems to me like Omicron has to be very near the peak of viral replication and load.
I agree with almost all your choices (among those that I have some opinion about). Except for vitamin D. It is currently not recognised as effective for anything except bone health and the positive studies are very much like ivermectin studies. Also Scott has much deeper understanding of medical regulatory environment, so I trust him more on this.
"28. Some new variant not currently known is greater than 25% of cases: 60%
Hold. So far we’ve had Alpha, Delta and Omicron within two years, so 60% seems reasonable."
"13. WHO will designate another Variant Of Concern by year's end (75%): HOLD
Sell to 70%. Feels high to me, I dunno."
Here is my case for these being more likely.
Mutations are a function of number of replications, and the graphs going vertical everywhere with Omicron mean there is a lot more COVID replicating out there* than there ever was with earlier strains. Pretty soon there is going to be a huge selection advantage to escape immunity gained by Omicron, and since apparently Omicron infection gives Delta immunity it won't just be Delta coming back.
Is there anything wrong with how I'm thinking about this?
I think we'll still be doing enough sequencing somewhere to catch something that shows up in 25% of cases, even as most people stop testing, and infections get much more mild.
Buy 28 to 70%.
I have a gut feeling WHO will want to keep talking about COVID to counter people probably being very over it and going back to life as usual, but less confident.
Still I'd buy back up to VOX's 75%.
*Including in my body currently. Yay!
Remember that I force myself into bins of 50/60/70/80/90/95/99 (or the inverse of these) in order to make grading easier, so when you (for example) sell from 5% to 3% you're not necessarily disagreeing with me. I don't know if there's a better way to handle this; maybe next year I'll break this custom even though it would make it harder to compare to past cycles.
> Hold. So far we’ve had Alpha, Delta and Omicron within two years, so 60% seems reasonable.
My gut says lower here, maybe 20%. I asked about six months ago if there was a theoretical asymptote for Covid R0. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mXBBHAEXj2JyPC6Dt/is-there-a-theoretical-upper-limit-on-the-r0-of-covid
People seemed to think it would eventually converge on its most transmissible form. Sure, transmissibility is related to immune escape, and Omicron had a lot of immune escape. But that being said, just based on the physics and biology of viral reproduction, it seems like there has to be an overall transmissibility threshold. Otherwise, why doesn’t measles not have an R0 approaching 1000? or 10000? It’s had a lot of time to evolve.
I think we have approached the transmissibility threshold with Omicron, where the viral load is higher than Delta https://health.ucdavis.edu/news/headlines/omicron-10-things-to-know-about-the-very-contagious-covid-19-variant/2022/01#:~:text=Omicron%20is%20highly%20transmissible%20compared,with%20the%20Delta%20variant.
So will we see variants with immune escape? Very likely. Will also they find an additional way to increase viral load significantly relevant to Omicron and thereby also replace Omicron and the most contagious strain? It just seems to me like Omicron has to be very near the peak of viral replication and load.
I agree with almost all your choices (among those that I have some opinion about). Except for vitamin D. It is currently not recognised as effective for anything except bone health and the positive studies are very much like ivermectin studies. Also Scott has much deeper understanding of medical regulatory environment, so I trust him more on this.