@notany this seems like an important quote:

"Another wrinkle is that the dosing error occurred early in the trial when researchers were only recruiting people between the ages of 18 and 55—excluding older people more vulnerable to disease. The analysis with the two-full doses, on the other hand, did include older age groups."

@gbear605 Well, assuming the alternative is coming back to the price from a year ago (USD 4), at the current price of USD 88, you'd have to be at over 20% on this question for it to be a good investment. (Assuming a super-naive simplification where it either raises to 420 or falls to 4, obviously your distribution over other values is crucial here).

— edited by FranekŻak

Reddit is quite frequently overwhelmed, only questions is would anybody report on that.

@Sylvain Well, that of course depends on your understanding of the deeply ambiguous word 'become', and the nature of time itself.

@cd I am very surprised how likely this appears. From a general exposure to media, I would have guessed a 10% chance at most, and yet this analysis seems broadly correct.

@Linch Since this is making the rounds, could a good question to ask (something like, is >30% of the UK currently infected)

@aran There's definitely questions that are only on pandemic. Not sure what the data source eveyrone is using includes, but @Tamay decided to make his question include only metaculus prime, which I would assume includes predictions cross-posted on pandemic, and any predictions made on them.

The question resolves as the median of the median estimates, found > in two studies published in 2021

Is this meant to say "At least two"?

@randallburns That would not resolve this question though, would it? At the time of the election, the sitting president would be Harris.

Why the top 100 requirement? Seems artificially narrow.

Is anyone aware of any actual mechanism that could cause this dosing to be more effective? My general suspicion would be that this is likely a glitch in the data / an intentional misrepresentation of it, in order to be able to publish a number closer to Moderna's/Pfizer's

Not sure what's the general policy on titles, but I think this questions title doesn't quite reflect its actual resolution criteria. Maybe '... is good for some people? ' could be substituted? [this is nit-picking , I acknowledge]

— edited by FranekŻak