17 Comments

What are your thoughts on getting an additional booster that's of the opposite technology as your vaccine? For example, if you got the J&J vaccine & booster, getting the mRNA booster. Would we expect that to confer any benefits?

Expand full comment

Mix-n-match is generally a good idea based on what we know.

Expand full comment

Hm, IIUC the evidence is all that getting an MRNA vaccine if you previously got something else is good, but I haven't seen any data that suggests that if you got an MRNA vaccine that you'd be better off getting a J&J booster.

So maybe the advice is just, MRNA vaccines are better, get those, and that's true for boosters regardless of what your first shot was.

Expand full comment

I stuck with just one kind to provide a different kind of diversity!

Expand full comment

Random "helpful suggestion," magnitude likely smaller than "get boosted" by substantial degree -- it still amazes me how many folks who stack all their other protection bonuses as much as possible use cloth masks instead of KN95s, and how many folks don't have tests at home despite availability via Walmart, etc.

It may be worthwhile to consider add a "I'm already vaxxed and boosted, how can I level up" section in future summaries -- even if you see it explicitly as lower ROI, it may be useful to give folks a place to put their stress energy that does have some marginal benefit, instead of them putting it in counterproductive places.

Expand full comment

Cloth masks are for mask requirements, KN95s are for preventing Covid. Know your goal! Always having home tests available is a good note, should include that at some point.

Expand full comment

what also could be useful, is to add a section "I'm already vaxxed and boosted, how can I stop giving a damn about corona and live life"

Expand full comment

Not by writing all these posts, that's for sure!

(But in all seriousness, it's pretty easy, you just... do that)

Expand full comment

Do you take bets on any of your predictions?

Expand full comment

I'm attempting to get real prediction markets launched. Basic answer is no, but if offered good enough odds and a trustworthy resolution mechanism, I'd consider it.

Expand full comment

We obviously have to make this more precise, but I'd bet 50:50 odds on some nominal amount in the ballpark of 100$ where you give "Chance that Omicron will displace Delta: 70% → 80%, is this sufficiently "good enough"?

Re: resolution mechanism - how is some variation on I paypal you the money, you solemnly swear not to leak any identifying information you get from the transaction, and if I win you paypal me back twice the amount? This obviously makes the bet slightly more +EV since you invest it at the riskless rate :)

Expand full comment

OK, I suppose that's good enough. Amount is small so makes sense to capture virtue of betting here.

Simple proposal: You subscribe yearly for $100. If, after one year (Dec 1 2022) there hasn't been a month when Omicron>Delta in sequencing (by default as per CDC nowcast https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Fcases-updates%2Fvariant-surveillance%2Fgenomic-surveillance-dashboard.html#variant-proportions , or another trustworthy news source if they stop updating, 99.9% chance it's obvious one way or another and ultimately it's my call) then I owe you $200, and you can contact me to remind me of this and provide your PayPal info (or choose a charity, etc). Offer good until 5pm eastern 12/1/20 unless I withdraw it via another comment since situation is developing rapidly.

Expand full comment

I'm confident we can reach mutuably agreeable terms here. I'd like to shorten the time-frame of the bet, so that it gets settled by the summer, say May. I'd also like to exclude some situations technically included here but IMO not in the spirit of "dispaces Delta". In particular, the case where coronavirus cases fall, but there are spurious pockets outbreaks of Omicron here and there that may get disproportional sequencing attention. Also, your original terms are conditional on no other variants appearing. I propose that we we split the difference (i.e. you pay me back 100$) if, before the bet would otherwise conclude, one of

(a) daily US case numbers go below 10,000

(b) there is a non-omicron variant with more cases than Delta.

If you agree, let me know, and I'll subscribe. If not, we can see how we can amend the terms better.

Expand full comment

OK, so new terms as I understand them:

1) If Omicron>Delta by end of May 2022, while bet is still active, Zvi wins ($0 owed).

2) If daily USA cases <10k while bet is active before May 2022, bet is a push ($100 owed)

3) If OtherVariant>Delta>Omicron while bet is active, bet is a push ($100 owed)

4) If none of that happens by end of May 2022, Matty wins ($200 owed)

5) Zvi interprets rules and decides how/when bet resolves.

Expand full comment

Sounds good. I have subscribed, please confirm the subscription by comment below this one. Note that I have "cancelled" my subscription to prevent auto-renew, but the text while "cancelling" told me that the subscription goes for a year. Unless substack screwed things up, you should receive 100$ or have already received this amount.

Expand full comment

Is it really the case that WHO statement regarding reinfections is based on any non-public information, though?

Perhaps they are just inferring it from combination of things we already know, namely, 1) omicron seems to be spreading rapidly in South Africa, dominating delta, 2) lots of people in South Africa had covid, most of them "off the books", and 4) genetic makeup of omicron looks like something that could evade immunity.

Expand full comment