@randomuser2323 Agree with your last point that the fact that people are putting down money doesn't show a lot in this case.

I joined the Polymarket Telegram group and heard some of the crazy stuff being spouted and realized "oh. These are the people I am betting against".

I literally 10x-ed my bet after seeing that.

(fwiw, if you are looking for a way a US person can bet a large amount at low fees, Polymarket might be worth checking out).

— edited by ethulin

When doing these monthly predictions, only being able to use 5 components is quite restrictive.

@admins I wish there was a categorical (beyond binary) response type for predictions for this sort of question. Similar to how many survey platforms have a "continuous sum" response type. Would make this short of question a lot easier. https://help.alchemer.com/help/continuous-sum

I am confused by how this question is supposed to interact with the Georgia runoff. If the question truly is which party will elect the senate majority leader on Jan 3rd, then that is obviously the Republicans, as the Georgia runoffs are not until Jan 5th. However, this question resolves on Jan 1st, before the Georgia runoff which will determine the majority leader. I think the question should be rephrased to represent who will be elected after the senators from Georgia are seated, and the resolution date should be pushed back to mid-January when we w...

I think the fact that AstraZeneca may not end up w/ an efficacy above 75% in an RCT could have a huge impact on this, given how much better suited it is for global deployment.

I also think we may be in a weird space trying to decide if the half dose-full dose regime counts as "in an RCT", when that treatment arm was not randomized, so I think it would require another RCT with that dosage randomized to meet the criteria.

@Uncle Jeff

If that is the case then clearly people aren't properly interpreting the question as written, as that would be a near 100% chance of a republican controlled chamber.

So if there is that massive a misunderstanding in the userbase, then the question itself ought to be clarified, not just the date.

— edited by ethulin

I am a little confused here. The question says "with a half-dose compared to the full dose". However, the regime tested (and that may now be pre-registered and tested again) was a half dose-full dose combo. Indeed, the quote above from STAT says "explore adding the half dose-full dose regimen", so I assume the author of the question is referring to the half dose-full dose regime. If you read the question literally, I would take it to mean half-dose at both periods, which as far as I know is not being explored. @moderators, I suggest the title and que...
[Researchers from Oxford claim the 1.5 dose regime was intentional](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-astrazeneca-insigh/fortune-or-foresight-astrazeneca-and-oxfords-stories-clash-on-covid-19-vaccine-idUSKBN28D2A7) >AstraZeneca’s research chief told Reuters 10 days ago, when interim trial data was released, the half-dose was given inadvertently as a first shot to some trial participants, and emerged as a stroke of fortune - “serendipity” - that scientists expertly harnessed. >This narrative was refuted by a leading Oxford University...

@Sylvain thanks! Still learning the platform, obviously...

Has anyone identified any trackers which are identifying # who have completed the 2 dose regimen?

I would love to have a question that gets at the notion of when a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be "widely available" in the United States. By that I mean that, in general, anyone who wants to get one can get one, similar to most other common vaccinations. However, I am having a hard time clearly describing the resolution criteria. "Widely available" is a phrase I hear used by the media as well as public health experts, but I don't think the criteria of a media report that the vaccine is "widely available" is ideal, so I would love suggestions on how to frame...

Why does this close on October 30th? It seems like it should presumably close at least by July, if not earlier.

I think the point @notany here is being misunderstood/not appreciated.

Even when something affects both the treatment and control arm of an RCT, if the question is about generalizability to a new environment (i.e. non masks and distancing), then the question is about an interaction effect.

It is possible that the dosage if effective with lower viral loads, but less effective with higher viral loads. This would lead to a situation x treatment interaction effect that would result in overestimating the real world effectiveness post relaxed measures.

@(michaelchen) I chose the 70% operationalization to make it a clear resolution criterion because I suspect you are right that there will be disagreement (higher or lower) for what will eventually constitute herd immunity. So for the sake of this question, I set the specific resolution criterion 230M (~70%), whether or not there is an eventual agreement that that is precisely herd immunity. As you probably know, herd immunity is not only hard to precisely pin down, but also fluid. it depends on the reproduction rate of the virus, which itself is depend...

@moderators Trying to make sure I understand the language here. According to the text, the US has purchased

100M doses of the Sanofi/GSK candidate

So does this mean that, even if no such doses are ever produced or delivered, this will still count towards the total?

— edited by ethulin

Yeah, their choice there seems really deliberate. If there is no clear further escalation (which seems likely), I doubt they will go into attempted.

@Jgalt Oh! Very good call.

Yeah, that sound exactly right (where the confusion is coming from).