This is a new version of of /Joshua/what-is-the-probability-that-covid but with the latest Numeric Market format.
If Zvi doesn't publicly state a probability after market creation and before the end of 2024, this market will resolve N/A.
If he does publicly state a probability, this market resolves to the option containing that probability, rounding down if he says a number that divides two buckets. So if he says 6%, this resolves to the 0-6% bucket and not the 6-12% bucket.
Please don't bother Zvi to give a probability just because of this market, I think it's better if he gives a number in his own time as new evidence comes out.
Note that Zvi betting on a market about COVID origins, including this one, wouldn't count as him stating a probability. It needs to be a direct statement.
1,000
3.00An hours-long detailed debate is so much better than not having one, but the result is still highly correlated with the skills and knowledge and strategies of the two debaters, so in a sense it is only one data point unless you actually go over the arguments and facts and check everything. Which I am not going to be doing.
(I mean, I could of course be hired to do so, but I advise you strongly not to do that.)
The practical takeaway is that, without any desire to wade into the question of who is right about any particular details or overall, it seems like everyone (even when not trolling) is acting too confident based on what they think about the component arguments, including Scott’s 90% zoonosis.
I do not see any good arguments that a lab leak or zoonosis couldn’t both cause similar pandemics, everyone is merely arguing over which caused the Covid-19 pandemic in particular. And I claim that this fact is much more important than whether Covid-19 in particular was a lab leak.