(new betting discouraged) How will SalemCenter's "China Reaches 100,000 Covid Cases by Winter" market resolve?
81%
chance

Will resolve to match https://salemcenter.manifold.markets/SalemCenter/china-reaches-100000-covid-cases-by

This market resolves as YES if China reports a 7-day rolling average of at least 100,000 covid-19 cases at any point between the opening of the market and February 28, 2023. Source for settling the market will be Our World in Data at the link below.

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer

Should that source be unavailable, a suitable alternative will be found.

The current 7-day rolling average (November 26) is 25,834:

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?time=2022-08-11..latest&facet=none&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=false&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~CHN&Metric=Confirmed+cases

December 27: the title has been changed to "(new betting discouraged) How will SalemCenter's "China Reaches 100,000 Covid Cases by Winter" market resolve?" -

Please read this update before participating in this market.

Dec 22, 8:06pm: Will China reach 100,000 daily Covid Cases by February 28, 2023? → Will China report 100,000 daily Covid Cases by February 28, 2023?

Sort by:
BTE avatar
BTEbought Ṁ0 of YES

Some other folks come and get these easy profits I opened up by selling some shares!!!

BTE avatar
BTEsold Ṁ2,158 of YES

Let’s do it again!!!

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 84%

Consider this, "Errata" for anyone considering participating in this market:

I find it interesting that Salem hasn't already resolved the contest. Here's a blog post on a bit of what they are on about:

https://www.cspicenter.com/p/introducing-the-salemcspi-forecasting

The argument against expertise, particularly the kind of expertise validated and legitimized by university credentials, goes something like this. Individuals succeed in business because they provide goods and services people want at the prices they are willing to pay. In academia, however, people are hired with other people’s money. There is often no objective measure of whether one’s research is any good, and individuals that do the hiring suffer no direct consequences from making bad decisions. In sum, academics become academics by writing things that people who are already academics like and agree with. This is basically the definition of a self-licking ice cream cone.

I have mentioned this in previous comments, they have a huge grudge against academic expertise and how government decisions were made during the pandemic in the United States because ultimately Salem Center is funded by a conservative Texas real estate entrepreneur. It's interesting because I'm not sure that they knew (or cared) that the OWiD feed linked back to Johns Hopkins, and I am not seeing them acknowledge any of my messages on the topic or messages from the people who maintain the Johns Hopkins feed.

So I believe they may dither on resolving the market until they get 100% confirmation on the OWiD feed, regardless of whether the fact that that feed is automatically fed in from Johns Hopkins and is no more than an API. Even though the people who maintain the Johns Hopkins feed announced that we should look to the WHO feed in the interim, Salem is not resolving the bet yet.

Though I'm looking to hugely profit from a, "YES" resolution on this market, if I'm completely honest with myself, I don't know for sure that Salem is going to resolve their market as a YES until they see that OWiD feed change.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 84%

@PatrickDelaney The OWID GitHub page says they are going to integrate the WHO data imminently. I don’t know for sure, but it seems like China just arbitrarily decided they would rather report to WHO (where they have some influence and relationships) than Johns Hopkins (where they don’t). Salem doesn’t have to resolve any market technically until it’s closed.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 84%

@BTE My understanding is that China isn't reporting to anyone. It's the China CDC, which puts out count reports. The WHO, according to their website creates their own estimates based upon government reports and their own expertise, it's opaque - so it may be that the WHO put their information after some consultation with whatever health experts from wherever. Contrast this to Johns Hopkins, which reports directly from Government reports, they literally have people manually doing data entry from government reports, and it's all open source on Github.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 84%

@PatrickDelaney The epidemiologists at the CDC report cases here in the US. Do you think every single case in US data is based on a positive test logged in a registry somewhere? No, lots of cases reported everywhere are estimated from waste water using statistics. China is not special in the sense you are claiming. The head epidemiologist at China’s CDC personally guesses there have been 900 million cases since mid-December. We changed the way we tallied and reported cases at about the same point in our first wave that China did. The fact that the WHO is reporting anything means they have the permission of the CCP, there should be no doubt about that. I can’t find any government officials denying the WHO numbers too, which is China’s version of confirmation.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 79%

@BTE Well, even John's Hopkins instructed users to defer to WHO data for now so that's all that should matter. But again Salem lives in its own special fantasy world so we're not seeing a resolution yet.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 80%

I think this is the first time I have actually experienced/captured the "alpha" of a trade. I have been thinking for awhile and am now convinced that Manifold will prove over time to be an uniquely effective tool for identifying world class global macro hedge fund managers like Stanley Druckenmiller or Jim Rogers at very young ages. Peter Thiel pays kids not to go to college. Let's pitch Julian Robinson the idea of finding a tiger cub by creating a million dollar tournament on Manifold. Winner gets to join his den at Tiger Global no matter how old, who they are or whatever. Maybe a separate one for best arbitrage bot? Idk, I feel like what you guys have built really speaks for itself at this point, you just need to get in the room with Julian Robertson and I would double down everything I have made on this trade that he would would fund a tiger cub trading competition on Manifold. This is the thing none of the other prediction markets could really be because the best hedge fund global macro managers are both traders and market makers. @SG @JamesGrugett @Austin

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 85%

WHO is now reporting a daily average of 40M new confirmed cases during the week of December 19th, 2022 in China, that's a 7-day average of ~5M per day for that week. https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn

BTE avatar
BTEbought Ṁ0 of NO

@PatrickDelaney This has been fun!

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 82%

@PatrickDelaney Not to mention the 98 million "confirmed cases" since January 3rd.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 82%

@BTE We still have yet to see where this goes, it's not over until it's over. Salem could still decide to change their criteria, or just fail to resolve. Andy Martin could do the same.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 75%

@PatrickDelaney The folks in that competition are not going to let them get away with not resolving it, but they could resolve it dishonorably. There is no way they can resolve NO justifiably. I appreciate your work tracking down the numbers!!

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 80%

@BTE dang, even Xi Jinping liked my comments...can't really get more of an endorsement of official numbers than the big man himself. Big shout out to his Excellency.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 29%

The source Salem market is trading at closer to 50% at this point now, up from previously being at 20% - not sure why this Manifold Market wouldn't be mirroring that?

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneybought Ṁ100 of YES

Salem's Data Source now shows 59,895 deaths having been reported by China on January 15th, 2023. https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?facet=none&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=New+per+day&Relative+to+Population=false&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~CHN

However, case totals have not been updated yet.

This is because Johns Hopkins received death reports from the China CDC that was in the equivalent format to how they had in the past. However, case reports are in a different format, quote:

We are still working to understand how we may incorporate the "hospitalized cases of new coronavirus infection" into our dataset. We appreciate your patience.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 22%

https://m.weibo.cn/status/4860354171766047

China CDC Chief Epidemiologist has stated on Weibo that 80% of population has already been infected with COVID. https://weekly.chinacdc.cn/en/article/doi/10.46234/ccdcw2020.175

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 22%

@PatrickDelaney Absolutely zero justification for a NO resolution.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 24%

A certain member of this market who owns >17k no shares is advocating that Salem close the bet early because things are not going in his favor.

For the purposes of this market, I want to clarify something, which I have also mentioned to Salem:

Salem ending the market early in favor of NO would constitute resolving in a way that seems in bad faith or unreasonable, because of how their criteria lay it out. Salem changing this criteria so that they can resolve early would also be in bad faith.

1941159478 avatar
Johnny Ten-Numbersis predicting NO at 24%

@PatrickDelaney Alright, here's my attempt at a version of this market with hopefully unambiguous rules. It will resolve 100% based on that one Our World in Data graph.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 22%

@1941159478 Appreciated.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneybought Ṁ100 of YES

New Report from China CDC Today retroactively pointing back to 1/15/2023. Now it's a matter of time before this percolates into Johns Hopkins, which will then percolate forward into OWID, which the most extreme No better on Salem market insists should be the gold standard (even though it's just an auto-feed from Johns Hopkins):

So basically here is the original source of the original feed is reporting 1.27 million hospitalized cases of COVID, with 104,018 severe cases.

https://www.chinacdc.cn/jkzt/crb/zl/szkb_11803/jszl_13141/202301/t20230115_263381.htm

1. Cases On January 12 , 2023 , 31 provinces (autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government) and Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps had 1.27 million hospitalized cases of new coronavirus infection , and 104,018 severe cases (including critical cases) , of which 7357 were severe cases of new coronavirus infection 96,661 cases of severe basic diseases combined with new coronavirus infection . From December 8 , 2022 to January 12 , 2023, medical institutions in 31 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities) and Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps accumulatively had 59,938 hospitalized deaths related to COVID - 19 infection. 5,503 cases died of exhaustion, and 54,435 cases died of exacerbation due to underlying diseases combined with new coronavirus infection .

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 24%

@PatrickDelaney That link is dead. But nice find!

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 22%

@BTE My guess would be, it's an NGinx error, their server has crashed because of so many visitors. It's an unprecedented report for the past month and a half.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 22%

@BTE keep in mind...billion people in China, they all want to know about this. Seems to be a sort of glasnost moment?

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneybought Ṁ10 of YES

Basically Salem isn't paying very close attention to the market, they have don't have the volume of market participants that we do.

They sometimes respond to my comments on that market when I go in there and post updates.

I'm posting a screenshot of Andy's comment because he never updated his resolution criteria into the market description, he just updated the market with a link to his comment.

I want to reiterate one small point which is very important:

if the Salem market resolves in a way that seems in bad faith or unreasonable, I'll resolve this as N/A.

It is completely unreasonable given what @BTE posted that if Salem resolves as NO or N/A at this point, so this market MUST now either resolve as YES or N/A.

1941159478 avatar
Johnny Ten-Numbersis predicting NO at 28%

@PatrickDelaney But the sentence after that is important too!

[…] if the Salem market resolves in a way that seems in bad faith or unreasonable, I'll resolve this as N/A. Otherwise I'll match their resolution, even if I disagree with or am disappointed by their reasoning or decision.

I’m assuming the Salem Center is just taking their stated resolution criteria very literally, including the part saying ‘Source for settling the market will be Our World in Data at the link below’. And if you look only at Our World in Data, this should be a NO so far. Obviously, that is disagreeable and disappointing to some. But it’s internally consistent.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 28%

@1941159478 That is NOT what Salem originally said. You explicitly skip the part where they say if that source isn’t available they will use another source.

And the 60,000 deaths reported yesterday should make it clear that they are going to report cases eventually and 100k is a drop in the bucket. That is like two blocks of Beijing, and the entire city is apparently going to get Covid by the end of the month. It is so much easier for this question to resolve YES than is appreciated by the NOs, but that’s fine with me.

1941159478 avatar
Johnny Ten-Numbersis predicting NO at 28%

@BTE Yeah I think a lot depends on how to interpret "unavailable" since OWID is still around but not very meaningful in this case.

It’s not like I’ve got any special insight into the Salem Center’s attitudes, but I feel like if they were up for resolving this based on other forms of evidence (like officials making announcements that commonsensically imply YES) they would have already. You’ve provided some articles that plausibly could have sufficed for that already.

But who knows! My tummy is at like 10% right now. My point was just that a NO resolution wouldn’t necessarily be bad faith or unreasonable.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 16%

I am stunned that even after they start reporting official numbers again so many are willing to keep betting on insanity.

BTE avatar
BTEbought Ṁ1,000 of YES

Peking University (China’s Harvard) study estimated 900mm cases since end of Zero Covid.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 16%

China has now "officially" reported 60,000 Covid deaths since they ended the Zero Covid policy. This means it is more like 600,000 because they do not count deaths like everyone else. It also means that 100,000 cases has long ago been past and it is only a matter of time before they report it "officially".

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 19%

According to the NHC, fever clinic visits – both in cities and rural areas – have been declining since the peak when more than 2.86 million people visited them on December 23, 2022.

Salem is not going to be able to ignore “official” government statistics.

brp avatar
brpis predicting NO at 22%

It is worth noting that the Salem Center market resolves based on the OWID data, which is based on Johns Hopkins data, but as of three weeks ago [1] JH is no longer getting data from CCDC or the China National Health Commission, but from "https://news.qq.com/zt2020/page/feiyan.htm#/". I don't have access to that page and it isn't in Google Cache, but it has been cited by one academic paper [2] as "Tecent news. Instant updates: novel coronavirus outbreak dynamics," and by another academic paper [3] as "Tencent. Epidemic situation tracker." My guess would be that this semi-official source replaced official sources once official estimates were only reporting "symptomatic" cases.

[1] Github changelog: https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/commit/36796b264241680f10af5e8da25d899da6e35bea

[2] 10.1186/s41256-020-00140-9

[3] 10.1177/0018578720942229

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 22%

@brp That is incorrect.

The OWID data is indeed an automated feed from Johns Hopkins.

China shifted from the China NIH to the China CDC, as there was an announcement from the China NIH that their reporting would shift to the CDC.

There is a few days lag between the Johns Hopkins raw GitHub feed and what shows up on their own dashboard and then another lag between what shows up on OWID.

I pulled the raw data myself in a Colab notebook, compared everything, compared the China CDC reports, did a checksum.

The data from the Chinese CDC seems to be punched in manually by Johns Hopkins. Johns Hopkins announced a reconciliation three days ago starting from Dec 18th through 2022 and now there seems to be some erroneous / data mismatch. There has been no response from Johns Hopkins on this for three days.

So all of that being said, Johns Hopkins contextualizes their data and publishes, "data notes," which help interpret country raw data feeds, which OWID does not do.

OWID is just an auto-feed, it is meaningless. Johns Hopkins is an official source. Beyond that, as discussed below, we have the actual facts that Government Officials have reported well over the benchmark, with 88.5M cases in Henan reported by a health official alone. If you linearly extrapolate that out to 90 days, that's still in the hunedreds of thousands of cases. You would need to go back to September 6th, 2020 and assume uniform distribution to get 100,000 cases per day...in just Henan.

China be big.

brp avatar
brpsold Ṁ700 of NO

@PatrickDelaney Strong arguments. Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I no longer hold NO.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 13%

There have been 80 million cases in Henan according to officials but still no formal 100k/day avg reported so I guess the 80 million aren't 'officially official'. Incredible. We have gone from Zero Covid to Less Than Zero Covid.

brp avatar
brpis predicting NO at 22%

@BTE PRC has made several ... interesting moves in its reporting of cases. The Henan numbers are estimates by local health officials, while the national numbers are now counts of "symptomatic" positive tests. I for one joined this market in the expectation that the testing infrastructure would either fail or be abandoned in the case of a large wave of cases. Less Than Zero Covid indeed.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 22%

@brp Keep in mind, the overarching bet here has to do with Salem Center's source market being reasonable and acting in good faith.

Salem YES / Reasonable -> This market resolves YES.

Salem YES / Unreasonable -> This market resolves N/A.

Salem NO / Reasonable -> This market resolves to NO.

Salem NO / Unreasonable -> This market resolves N/A.

So assuming uniform distribution for all of the possible outcomes, the NO side is actually only at about 25%.

Now, looking at Salem and what they actually said on Dec 17th, 2022:

This market was never meant to estimate the true number of cases in China, but was always to be based on government reports. Thus, any alternative source to Our World in Data will have to rely on official numbers to be used. If at some point China stops reporting data completely, this market will resolve as NO as long as there was never 100,000 cases reported for any 7-day rolling average.

Since the start of this market, there was a lot of discussion on Manifold.Markets about whether Salem would resolve this bet properly, since it was clear that at a city level there were reports of millions of cases, and they were not saying anything, but the market was highly incongruent with the Manifold.Markets bet right here.

After December 17th, 2022 they opened the door to all government reports coming from China, not just Our World in Data.

If they keep raising the bar and saying, "oh well no it needs to be this kind of Government report, oh well it needs to be a report that supports our original hypothesis, oh well it needs to be so that only our friends win this bet" -- that's not reasonable or fair, so it needs to resolve in N/A.

So basically, taking your prior distribution of NO being at 25%, and Salem making increasing accommodations to change the bet to be whatever they need it to be, you're now much lower than 25% as a NO, and a YES bet would be a much better way to make money, because if it's N/A, everyone gets their money back, if it's a YES, you have really cheap YES shares right now.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneybought Ṁ10 of YES

This market is again grossly undervalued, as is the Salem market. Please see my comments on their thread: https://salemcenter.manifold.markets/SalemCenter/china-reaches-100000-covid-cases-by

1941159478 avatar
Johnny Ten-Numbersis predicting NO at 33%

Hedge your N/A resolutions here:

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneybought Ṁ10 of YES

All right I'm back in after trying to explain things more explicitly to Salem. We are really going to see who they are, whether they care about the truth or have some odd agenda on this specific market. Thank you all.

BTE avatar
BTEbought Ṁ500 of YES

I feel very strongly that the only honorable resolutions to this market are YES or N/A. A resolution of NO would be would a denial of reality, especially since I have shared multiple official government statements at the provincial level that should have already resolved this YES.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@BTE I actually physically went in and logged in to Salem Center's Manifold, linked to this market, let them know about my research thread. Again, I don't trust that they are going to resolve things properly, wanted to get my take, but I definitely stand my research below and think that you and any other bettors should rightfully be rewarded for that.

1941159478 avatar
Johnny Ten-Numbers

@PatrickDelaney I disagree with your take and would say that it’s ambiguous and both YES and NO would be defensible. I feel you’ve got the YES side covered, and I of course agree that there almost certainly are enough cases right now and that the Chinese government acknowledges that. But here’s the NO side:

 

The question stated that they would resolve as per Our World in Data and there’s a reasonably argument that resolutions should be very literal based on their description. And if you just look at that graph, it’s a clear NO so far. The graph now also comes with a note on China when you hover reading ‘No reporting since 25 Dec’. Also note that OWID is reporting Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan separately from (mainland) China, which it just calls China. It’s imprecise, but equating the two is also pretty common, people say things like ‘China does zero-COVID’ all the time. Everyone in the comments has also treated this as being about the mainland so far.

 

There was an exception noted in the original description in case OWID was ‘unavailable’. But they are up and running and aware of the situation judging from their note.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@1941159478 Look at my below research on the topic. The original wager was, "Will China do X," not, "Will Johns Hopkins report that China does X." If you follow the original Github repo, and show when the link from Johns Hopkins was taken off, and then look at the original source data, they passed the threshold.

1941159478 avatar
Johnny Ten-Numbersbought Ṁ400 of NO

@PatrickDelaney I read your comments here, but I’d argue the market actually was "Will OWID [in this case based on Johns Hopkins] report that China does X". And as far as I can tell the OWID/Johns Hopkins data is the same as the one from the link http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml in their source, which makes sense assuming they haven't committed some sort of horrible transcription error. With that data China has not yet passed the threshold with the highest reported 7-day rolling average of new cases only being about 40,000: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?facet=none&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=false&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~CHN

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneybought Ṁ10 of YES

@1941159478 Look at the individual reports that you linked from NhC.Gov.CN, for example:

http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202212/cb666dbd11864171b6586887c964791c.shtml

Add up: 1. Current cases from 31 provinces. 2. Cases in Hong Kong.

So, you can review all of the days in between yourself, they go up from 105,143 + 76,361 to 97,195 + 108,371 which is clearly well over 100k as a seven day average.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 29%

So the sticking point on the source Market at Salem seems to be this data set:

Which is actually just a wrapper for the data set at:

https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19

Data published byCOVID-19 Data Repository by the Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University

Which if you look at their commit on December 19th, 2022 here:

https://github.com/CSSEGISandData/COVID-19/commit/36796b264241680f10af5e8da25d899da6e35bea

This Github repo inexplicably deletes the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China and the China CDC.

- National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (NHC): http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml - China CDC (CCDC): http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/news/TrackingtheEpidemic.htm - qq.com: https://news.qq.com/zt2020/page/feiyan.htm#/ - National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (NHC): http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml - China CDC (CCDC): http://weekly.chinacdc.cn/news/TrackingtheEpidemic.htm

It's reasonable to accept that they have deleted those sources because the reporting from China is now bat-shit insane.

So, that's the source that Salem points to as the end source, right? Well, China hasn't stopped reporting. Johns Hopkins has stopped reporting data from China . This is very critical to realize. Here you have an institution in the United States pointing at an Institution in China, and then later deleting their source data stream. So being that we are betting on what was pointed at in a previous data stream, namely the China NHC and the China CDC...we really only have those pieces of information to go off of, because that's what Salem put out there originally, with their question, "Will China report X" -- not "Will Johns Hopkins report that China reports X" Right? Follow me here?

So next let's look at what the old data stream from the China NHC is most recently reporting:

So you go here to this website...again, linked by Salem Center, not by me:

http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml

Then click on the most recent report as of the time of authoring this:

http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202212/cb666dbd11864171b6586887c964791c.shtml

Toward the bottom of that document, translated, they report:

As of 24:00 on December 23, 31 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Central Government) and the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps reported that there are currently 41,699 confirmed cases (including 515 severe cases), 350,117 cured and discharged cases, 5,241 deaths, and confirmed cases reported. There are 97,195 cases, and there are 24 suspected cases. A total of 15,377952 close contacts were traced, and 147,724 close contacts were still under medical observation.

A total of 9,161,081 confirmed cases have been reported in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. Among them, 495,614 were discharged from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (108,371 discharged and 11,373 deaths), 1851 in the Macao Special Administrative Region (1521 discharges and 19 deaths), and 8,663,616 cases in Taiwan (137,742 discharges and 15,039 deaths) in Taiwan.

So... 😂 I didn't see that one coming ... but yeah, you have China reporting case out of Taiwan...makes sense from their perspective I guess. Of course they are reporting that Taiwan's cases are MUCH higher than the glorious PRC Mainland, ha ha. But yeah...technically they did report that there are over 9 MILLION cases in China!!!

Case closed, there is no way that this market can now be resolved as NO...needs to be either YES or N/A.

BTE avatar
BTEbought Ṁ100 of YES

@PatrickDelaney Whoa!! You just slayed Salem. This is awesome.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 29%

@PatrickDelaney Even if you reject the notion of Taiwan being a part of China...which would be totally a fair point on Salem's part. You still have Among them, 495,614 were discharged from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ... OK, so NO ONE serious thinks that Hong Kong is not part of China. No one. You have almost a half million cases having been discharged in Hong Kong, as reported by China. Regardless of how shady China is being, they reported over 100k cases within mutually Internally accepted, "China."

BTE avatar
BTEbought Ṁ500 of YES

@PatrickDelaney A possible problem with your analysis is the 7 day average not total cases.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 29%

@PatrickDelaney The thing most are missing is China simply reassigned reporting to a different department in the same agency. We did the same thing at the CDC in the US. They will start reporting again at some point.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 29%

Above in the report it states regarding the 31 provinces on Mainland China:

There are 97,195 cases, and there are 24 suspected cases.

I mean...come on...3k short of 100k? It's going to be 100k, no problem...and when you take Hong Kong, Macao into account...easily 100k current cases are being reported.

I think the question is, "Does China Report X?" - which, here's the report that Salem linked to, here's what they are reporting...end of story, doesn't matter anything else. They linked us to a third-party data report and expect us to make bets off of that. If they claim that 2+2 =5 then this market is an N/A.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 58%

@PatrickDelaney Again though that is not a 7 day rolling average. That is an absolute total. Salem was technically asking about 100k/day.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 58%

@BTE open up the page link...put it through a translator. You will see at the top of the report it says:

From 00:00 to 24:00 on December 23

So I'm reading that as a daily report from midnight to midnight. Pretty clear, they even use military time.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 58%

@PatrickDelaney I absolutely follow what you are saying and I agree with you 100 percent. But still that is not a 7 day rolling average, that is one day of cases.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 58%

@PatrickDelaney OK let's look at Dec 16th-23rd. Starting at Dec 16th:

http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202212/6a7d9897b43e42b3903bc067f8154789.shtml

31 provinces:

76,361 cases

Hong Kong:

482,878 cases discharged

Now compare to Dec 23rd:

http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202212/cb666dbd11864171b6586887c964791c.shtml

31 provinces:

97,195 cases

Hong Kong:

495,614

So, I'm not sure why they repeat the, "cases discharged" number for Hong Kong, but even if you take the lower of the two numbers it's around 100k, so they are well within >100k over a 7 day average, just taking into account the 31 provinces and Hong Kong.

Now, China is almost certainly inflating the Hong Kong numbers and deflating the mainland numbers....but, they still went well over the 100k line for a 7 day average in terms of reporting! Again, case closed.

AndyMartin avatar
Andy Martinis predicting YES at 42%

@PatrickDelaney are you sure those aren't running totals since the beginning of the pandemic to the day of the report? may be missing something, but the ones I've checked seem to be monotonically increasing and I'm not sure the diffs add up to > 100k

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneysold Ṁ154 of YES

@AndyMartin not sure how I can make it more clear? Bailing on this market based on that question.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@AndyMartin Here's my track record in interpreting these reports thus far. https://manifold.markets/ManifoldMarkets/china-officially-abandons-covid-zer -- on this maret, when the score was down around 25%, I pulled up these reports and explained what was really going on in terms of China's Zero COVID policy. A lot of people doubted me. I exited once I got some profit because I didn't feel good about how the market maker, Manifold was going to resolve the bet, and I want to make sure I make my Manna while I can. Of course now it's at 98%...even prior to the source data being placed at 98%, the general market was at around 75% just based upon media reports catching up. Just read through everything I wrote very carefully, I am confident in what I wrote on your market here too. I am not 100% confident that Salem Center will resolve appropriately which would force you to resolve N/A, meaning I would not profit so that's why I'm choosing to step out for now.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@PatrickDelaney I should mention that I have worked and lived in China previously extensively, speak a limited amount of Chinese, though I don't read it, I have always used translators to figure out what's going on with these types of events.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 34%

@PatrickDelaney I think @AndyMartin asked a fair question as I had been under similar impression about the Chinese reported numbers. I don’t know how to feel about the fact that you went from being certain of your translation initially to being decidedly uncertain in your last comment….

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@BTE I'm very certain and I will be happy to continue engaging on this market and supporting your point. However, I am a conservative investor. Ultimately I don't want my Manna sitting there, I had made $M 100 and I could use that to create two more markets of things that are interesting to me. I'm not as much of a ride or die investor, because ultimately I can't be sure that this is going to be resolved properly. If it's resolved N/A I get nothing. However, I do believe it should be YES based upon what I read and I will continue to comment - same as I did with the Zero COVID market.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@PatrickDelaney If you think about it from the other point, if this market does get resolved properly, I'm going to miss out on a huge potential profit. So there's that way I'm getting punished for not sticking with it.

AlvarodeMenard avatar
Alvaro de Menard

@PatrickDelaney You're misinterpreting running totals figures.

AndyMartin avatar
Andy Martinsold Ṁ184 of YES

@AlvarodeMenard Yeah @PatrickDelaney this is the point I was making in the previous comment

If you look at the first and last days listed on http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/list_gzbd.shtml , Taiwan was at 8,329,008 on December 1 and 8,663,616 on December 24

With a population of ~24M, it's not possible that they would report 8M new cases each day for many weeks. It seems straightforward that this would be a running total of all cases (accurate on the day of the report), and that the total new infections from Dec 1 to Dec 24 was ~334,608 or ~15k/day

When you look at the diffs in other regions, I don't think it comes close to 100k/day

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@AndyMartin and @AlvarodeMenard ... the oringal wager:

7-day rolling average of at least 100,000 covid-19 cases at any point

*7-day rolling average* is the wager, not new cases

@AndyMartin you are changing the bet now to new cases from 7-day rolling average?

You can't just say, "when you look at the diffs I don't think," ...no one cares what you think, e.g. no one cares about your opinion, they care about what the actual results of the threshold upon what the bet is. You are the judge of this market, so have to actually copy and paste the source material, ideally linking back to the source material, as I have. Honestly, you can't be sloppy about it, unfortunately it's a lot of work, but you really can't just say, "Well I think it's X." -- that's just being arbitrary, no offense intended.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@PatrickDelaney Apologies about how harsh that sounds, I don't mean to have a rude tone. Hopefully I'm not being too hard on you here. But, the point still stands, that for any market, not just you personally, the opinion doesn't matter, the source material upon which the wager was based matters, so that should be cited first, then opinion and interpretation second.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@AlvarodeMenard Same point goes to you... "You're misinterpreting X," is meaningless, literally meaningless. You have to demonstrate and argue why it's misinterpreted in a clear way, you can't just, "throw a comment on the thread," this is not Twitter. Look and read my research, read the translations of the webpages. Please show me exactly where the error was.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaney

@AlvarodeMenard and again, I hope I'm not coming off to rude or too hard on you...and if so I apologize. But, at the end of the day, this is about adjudicating based upon a numerical threshold, not just yelling louder.

AndyMartin avatar
Andy Martinis predicting YES at 30%

Hi @PatrickDelaney , just to confirm: you're saying you interpreted the original prompt as being a 7-day average of total (cumulative) cases?

Honestly, you can't be sloppy about it, unfortunately it's a lot of work, but you really can't just say, "Well I think it's X." -- that's just being arbitrary, no offense intended.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else had a similar interpretation -- that said, I don't think using the 7-day average of new daily case counts is arbitrary at all.

  1. If you click on the OWID link in the market description, "7-day rolling average" in the graph options is a non-cumulative rolling average of daily new case counts

  2. This is how the previous market for 20k was resolved https://salemcenter.manifold.markets/SalemCenter/china-covid-wave-by-winter (i.e. it resolved yes after the 7d rolling average of new cases crossed 20k, not total cumulative cases)

  3. Reading the comments/discussion here shows that this seems to be the most common interpretation (control-F for "per day")

NicoDelon avatar
Nico Dis predicting YES at 30%

@AndyMartin You are correct about the meaning of 7-day rolling average and how that aspect of this market has been understood by most people.

Mira avatar
Mirais predicting YES at 30%

@PatrickDelaney "Ultimately I don't want my Manna sitting there, I had made $M 100 and I could use that to create two more markets of things that are interesting to me. I'm not as much of a ride or die investor, because ultimately I can't be sure that this is going to be resolved properly. If it's resolved N/A I get nothing."

FYI - your Mana gets "clawed back" when a market is resolved N/A, even if you exited your position entirely. It's as if all your trades never happened. Nobody profits, nobody loses. You'll have a negative balance if you already reinvested those profits.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 30%

@Mira I did not know that.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 53%

@NicoDelon @AndyMartin

OK, so it sounds like the interpretation of daily cases is based upon some standard figure that I disagree with, that's fine, I understand that's how it goes, and I have to go by popular interpretation, I'm not going to dispute that.

Let's look at the WHO report, what they are showing:

https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn

So that's around 26k new daily cases for now, which matches up with one of the figures within the reports I'm linking to. So it'll get there, it's going to get to 100k, still a safe YES bet.

Also, this doesn't take into account the Hong Kong numbers, which, OK let's say my interpretation is wrong, so we have to not count the Hong Kong numbers, you can still Google Hong Kong numbers independently and get 20k cases per day, curiously, cited by Johns Hopkins as well.

So, we're at 40k per day in both sets, based upon reports from the originally cited data sources. So we're up from 20k total two weeks ago...we'll get there by Feb 28th. However, we need to understand that China is indeed reporting this data through the source originally cited by Salem. Even though we all know that many Chinese government officials have already reported many more cases, etc., and that this data underreports, it's the original source data cited for the purpose of the bet.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 16%

What if there are 100,000 cases per day reported of infected Chinese travelers by their destination countries??

BTE avatar
BTEbought Ṁ100 of YES

I am back in market disclaimer be damned.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 13%

All right, for anyone new coming in here, since the market is not closed, and since it's explicitly being left open with the reverse-psychology honeypot invite to come on in and continue. Also...hello to anyone from the Salem Center coming in here and reading all of our research since you can't do your own...good luck with your, "academic research center," you have going on there. I'm still betting that Salem Center will resolve their market correctly as, "YES" or at least "N/A" because I'm guessing that they don't want to be perceived as completely divorced from reality, please read up on what Salem Center is here: https://salemcenter.org ... they were funded by a house flipper / slumlord in the Houston Area who, "likes the free market." ... https://medium.com/texas-mccombs-news/new-salem-center-for-policy-4d7da0c25ca3 they are basically a right-wing policy center funded by the Texas Business School. They need to play the accommodation game in order to keep their propaganda game going strong and solicit more donations from other rich Texans. So here's the thing...if they make too ridiculous of an act or statement, that potentially garners them a track record which eventually will result in negative media attention, which of course the donors to an institution like this don't want to see too much of. So if the Salem Center was like, Tucker Carlson or Mike Lindell, then I could completely see them saying anything that fits their agenda at any moment. However, I think based upon the idea that they are at least ostensibly a business school, they need to put up a veneer of reality, so I would put, 13% as being overly-reactionary in the negative domain. I think Andy seems like he's going to resolve this market here in a reasonable way, and probably he's going to put it at either a "YES" if Salem resolves "YES", or potentially, "N/A" or a probability if Salem resolves, "NO." Now keep in mind, Salem could also resolve to a probability, to save face. Also keep in mind...the politics of Texas, while being generally anti-China, is also very anti-lockdown, so one could reasonably see them just going with the flow and actually following the evidence. For this reason I'm buying more YES right now.

AndyMartin avatar
Andy Martinis predicting YES at 29%

Hi all, here is a general update on the market-

re:

While the "reach 100,000 cases" wording did suggest it was about the real number of cases, "will resolve to match" seems to me to point at a resolution procedure in a totally unambiguous way, and I think in these cases one has to go by the most unambiguous of the different wordings.

this is my current thinking and in line with past comments - if the Salem market resolves in a way that seems in bad faith or unreasonable, I'll resolve this as N/A. Otherwise I'll match their resolution, even if I disagree with or am disappointed by their reasoning or decision.

I realize this will disappoint people. Lots of comments like the below are interesting and valid in some way -

It’s very odd when markets end up totally divorced from reality. This makes their predictive value close to nothing IMO.

...
I agree that it’s important and that’s precisely for this reason that we shouldn’t have silly resolution criteria.

...

Any resolution other than N/A or YES deserves to be flagged as incorrect. If Salem misresolves it will have no impact on their reputation here, but @AndyMartin actually does face consequences for his reputation on Manifold. Andy has an opportunity to be a trustworthy market creator resolve honorabl

But I would echo @brp's point that Manifold has a really nice and simple way to deal with broken markets:

I guess this is a long way of saying that if you don't like the resolution criteria on Manifold, you are free to create your own markets!

In my opinion, the source market was likely doomed 10 days ago - my hope was that betting in this market would drop off and move elsewhere. Instead, it increased significantly, with most of the heaviest betting happening in the last week.

It would be nice to have the ability to block any new participants or bets in a market for cases where you'd rather not immediately resolve but also don't want the market to grow further.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 26%

@AndyMartin You can update the close time to yesterday and let it stay closed but unresolved and in the meantime continue the debate here. @jack has done that before and I think it might make sense here but that is your call. That would also prevent whales like me from dumping my huge position and wiping out all the other participants betting YES with me.

AndyMartin avatar
Andy Martinis predicting YES at 26%

@BTE ah, thanks. I hadn't thought of that option. I think the new title should be good enough to prevent new people from being misled while also allowing trading to continue for people who know what they're getting into.

BTE avatar
BTEsold Ṁ2,237 of YES

@AndyMartin I can't decide whether to leave the Mana in and hope for sanity to prevail or take a huge loss just so I don't have to keep it all locked up. This market was a honeypot!!! LOL!

brp avatar
brpsold Ṁ70 of NO

"If at some point China stops reporting data completely, this market will resolve as NO as long as there was never 100,000 cases reported for any 7-day rolling average."

"Effective immediately, there will no longer be reports of daily epidemic numbers, and the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention will report relevant information for reference and research purposes"

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 29%

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-national-health-commission-stop-publishing-daily-covid-figures-2022-12-25/ Here is an explicit, public statement by the provincial government in Zhejiang that they have 1mm cases/day. This seems harder to argue against being a government reported and confirmed figure.

BTE avatar
BTEbought Ṁ10 of YES

It’s pretty simple YES resolution now that the Chinese government has reported numbers. Without the stipulation that it had to be reported by the central government it doesn’t matter how the information gets out. The spirit and the letter of the resolution criteria have both been clearly achieved.

If Salem wants to misresolve their market whatever, that is why I don’t participate in that tournament, I have no confidence they are trustworthy. Any resolution other than N/A or YES deserves to be flagged as incorrect. If Salem misresolves it will have no impact on their reputation here, but @AndyMartin actually does face consequences for his reputation on Manifold. Andy has an opportunity to be a trustworthy market creator resolve honorably. Not only that, you can put pressure on Salem to resolve correctly too.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneyis predicting YES at 28%

@BTE What's misleading is not the description. What's misleading is the mismatch between the title and the description. Most users interface and place their bets purely based upon title from the main page, either clicking, "left or right," -- however, as soon as you say, "Reported by China as measured by Salem," it throws the probability distribution out the window. The title should be, "Will China report 100,000 daily Covid Cases by February 28, 2023? (Outcome Determined by Salem Center Market)" ... otherwise new betters are going to pile on from the front page as soon as the holiday season is over and they catch wind of frontline news that China is getting slammed.

PatrickDelaney avatar
Patrick Delaneybought Ṁ10 of YES

So I did some reading on the Salem Center...it's a complete joke. It's basically a bunch of butt hurt professors ranting about getting cancelled, hired by Texas billionaires to influence right-wing policy in their favor. OK, so that being said, they have published blog articles about how every decision any liberal western government did, re: COVID was obviously wrong, how much shutdowns actually killed more people than not shutting down, etc. - the types of things you would expect out of a right-wing institution. So that being said - the China topic is likely very uncomfortable for them, because on the one hand, it's obviously in their vested interests to rail on China non-stop, and on the other hand, they don't want to make it seem like China opening up creating a massive wave of COVID is a bad decision, because that's what they advocated for all along. The resolution criteria as they have written is clearly biased and looking to ignore reality - they talk about how the market could possibly resolve "NO" but now how it could resolve, "YES" if data was no longer reported:

If at some point China stops reporting data completely, this market will resolve as NO as long as there was never 100,000 cases reported for any 7-day rolling average.

Umm...OK ... so there's only a one-sided resolution criteria under that conditional outcome? Here's my thought - so as an institution looking to have at least a facade of legitimacy, they either need to resolve as, "N/A" or "YES" - but they probably won't until January, as that's when they get back from holiday break. N/A would help them save face, YES would help them just look more credible, "Oh yeah, we're totally all about the truth," ...so I think they are going to resolve "YES," because the evidence is just so overwhelming toward YES at this point, despite it being uncomfortable for them. I think there is a certain amount of legitimacy that they have to uphold to seem credible and issue policy advice in general, even though they are for the most part a largely deluded institution which has one purpose.

BTE avatar
BTEis predicting YES at 38%

@PatrickDelaney I think you nailed it.