@kievalet I think you're fairly spot on.

except that the CDC numbers have a 5 day lag before they stop being updated.

So that by the time the CDC number reads "82.5 million", the actual date of completion will have been several days earlier.

ETA: the posted Question is very specific about resolution at 82.5 million, not 85 million (the number you discuss)

Edit 2: Current number on CDC site is 82.47 million.

— edited by cd

@(krtnu) I believe the 10% only applies to profits, not to revenues. So you get $7 of revenue on $6.92 of costs, for profits of $0.08. Then you get taxed (by PI) 10% of that $0.08, or about $0.01, for net profits of $0.07, or almost exactly 1%, risk free, over a 6 month period. Then of course you hit two more barriers. I believe PI also has some kind of 'redemption fee/minimum', so you need your overall profits across bets to make that worthwhile. Then you hit federal/state income (or capital gains?) taxes. Almost all of this is designed to hit profits...

following @krtnu, I see a base rate of 0.7 over the last 4 years, implying a binomial probability of ~85%.

@MperorM Seems like if the editors wanted to let this go, its a very easy decision, and then easy to tweet about it or let Scott know. Nothing about that process should take much time. "Whatever just drop his name" is quick, easy, and fixes the problem immediately.

On the other hand, if you care a lot about the name being included, then we see ongoing silence. Weighing the pros/cons behind closed doors. Multiple longer discussions. Seeing how long the outrage lasts.

I get why it is easier, but I think future questions using the market as a benchmark should consider including dividends per share in the calculations. Otherwise you're baking in a bias towards 'growth' stocks winning these competitions, for no real reason. I believe yahoo finance has an 'adjusted close' column which deals with this in their historical data bit, if data access is the issue. The scale of this issue obviously varies depending on the bet, but at the moment, it appears to me that this accounts for 3/4 of the difference between SPY being at...

@Linch I think we saw this. There was a definite uptick in approval ratings in early march, lasting through April. But it has faded. To me, @Sylvain's explanation here is critical. Trump's popularity declined when people realized that he is really not managing the crisis. He delegated what little federal response there was to Pence.

@(SpoutingThomas) Really appreciate you going through and putting good numbers to it. I certainly threw 1/10 out based on very little. At the time, other commenters (AABoyle and Semicolon) were implying this was something like a 1/4 or 1/3 event, which seemed way high, but definitely made me (overly?) cautious of numbers below 1/10. As you say, 2000 was very close to it. Given that the election was effectively decided by 537 votes in Florida, and there were massive questions about recounts etc, it seems like 3/4 of the way to happening. For my money, yo...

@AABoyles I'm sure you know this, b/c you described as a pseudo-lower-bound, but as a reminder for everyone else, the mathematical lower bound is that these are perfectly negatively correlated -- and that the joint event has a probability of 0.

I'm leaning towards them being very highly correlated.

@(Sylvain) I don't know when it happened in the world. And I'm not sure if J&J counts, but the US alone with only Pfizer&Moderna passed this threshold by May 7. - *Without J&J*: [May 6th US CDC](https://web.archive.org/web/20210506192441/https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations) shows 54.6m people fully vaccinated with Pfizer and 44.2m people Moderna. (the very last chart in the 'vaccinations' section and 'Vaccinations in the US' subsection). [May 7th US CDC](https://web.archive.org/web/20210507150534/https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-trac...

Love the idea. I also want a simpler question. "How many Zebras escaped?". Seems like there is some confusion here...

Interesting to me that the J&J pause hasn't affected forecasts here

As ever, the question looks to be underspecified in some way that was unpredictable at the time of writing.

I'm curious, do we think there is a larger takeaway for specifying questions here?

"Resolved based on best available evidence as of Noon on January 22" - would this have helped in more than just this situation?

@Jgalt Wow. That is probably a much more effective use of campaign $$$ than I've ever seen. Honestly somewhat in awe

@krtnu Deluxe is definitely the forecast they are defaulting to and implicitly recommending. But given that it basically adds a bunch of other pundit predictions to the polls based forecasts they are already making, I think its mostly the 538 team hedging because their 2/3 dem win prediction felt overly confident to them.

What are the vaccines we think are eligible?

Here is a list of organizations that have made that are in use (from NYT):

  • Pfizer-BioNTech
  • Moderna
  • Sputnik V
  • Oxford-AstraZeneca
  • CanSino
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Vector Institute
  • Novavax
  • Sinopharm
  • Sinovac
  • Sinopharm-Wuhan
  • Bharat Biotech

Does anyone have good efficacy numbers for all of them?