The reference date is the date a peer reviewed manuscript first appears online at the journal website or is otherwise published by any of these three journals after being accepted for publication. Any peer reviewed manuscript type is acceptable. If lab leak likelihood is generally accepted based on data and analysis elsewhere, inevitably this will be cited approvingly in a peer reviewed manuscript in one of these journals shortly thereafter.
Any statement equivalent to finding over 50% likelihood for SARS-CoV-2 originating in a laboratory that reflects author(s) conclusions and is published following peer review qualifies.
In the vanishingly unlikely event anyone asks, I will refuse to comment on potentially qualifying manuscripts in submission.
While this is the most objective question I could come up with to address this point, I will not participate in the market.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ156 | |
| 2 | Ṁ98 | |
| 3 | Ṁ48 | |
| 4 | Ṁ38 | |
| 5 | Ṁ35 |
People are also trading
@Gameknight Someone can make a related market on how long it will take me to figure out how to do that. On my phone I can resolve for 3 out of 4 but I think this closes the market and pays out? I will take a look later today and figure it out.
@zcoli appears to not be a me problem — https://manifold.markets/FlorisvanDoorn/when-will-manifold-markets-allow-us?play=true
@zcoli Got it. I thought this was a Set question. Set is basically a better version of Multiple Choice. You can still choose to only resolve one option as YES (in the case that all options are mutually exclusive), but Set allows you to resolve any individual choice at any time.
@Gameknight thanks for the tip -- hopefully I did it correctly here https://manifold.markets/zcoli/which-scientists-featured-in-thank
@zcoli Yeah, probably? Multiple choice is good in that it spreads out probability for a sum total of 100% across all choices, but at the same time it also prevents individual resolving, which definitely feels like an oversight that the devs should try to fix. Set on the other hand is great for individual resolving, but also isn't really probabilistically correct - the sum can be over 100%.
@Gameknight it’s now possible to resolve fractionally to different outcomes so I can do that (resolve to zero for 2024 and 2025; resolve other two at current price) if folks want. I prefer it.
very interesting how this market trades with the /IsaacKing/did-covid19-come-from-a-laboratory at 75%+ for so long
@firstuserhere Does the difference reflects buying to send different signals in one or both markets or a collective belief that these journals won't publish well supported conclusions for some reason? Beats me.
It's good to see someone finally buy "No" on "Never or not for a long time" by the way. This isn't a particularly high bar as these journals publish things that seem likely to be retracted and ultimately are retracted now and then. And PNAS and eLife have shown that fairly high profile journals will entertain controversial points of view on the question.