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.
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.