The version of the claim I have heard is not that LW was early to suggest that there might be a pandemic but rather that they were unusually willing to do something about it because they take small-probability high-impact events seriously. Eg. I suspect that you would say that Wei Dai was âlateâ because their comment came after the nyt article etc, but nonetheless they made 700% betting that covid would be a big deal.
I think it can be hard to remember just how much controversy there was at the time. E.g. you say of March 13, âBy now, everyone knows itâs a crisisâ but sadly âeveryoneâ did not include the California department of public health, who didnât issue stay at home orders for another week.
[I have a distinct memory of this because I told my girlfriend I couldnât see her anymore since she worked at the department of public health (!!) and was still getting a ton of exposure since the California public health department didnât think covid was that big of a deal.]
The version of the claim I have heard is not that LW was early to suggest that there might be a pandemic but rather that they were unusually willing to do something about it because they take small-probability high-impact events seriously. Eg. I suspect that you would say that Wei Dai was âlateâ because their comment came after the nyt article etc, but nonetheless they made 700% betting that covid would be a big deal.
Is there any better evidence of this than the example you cited? That comment from Wei Dei is completely ridiculous⌠Making a lot of money off of a risky options trade does not discredit the efficient market hypothesis.
Even assuming Wei Deiâs math is right (which I donât automatically trust), the market guessing on February 10, 2020 that there was a 12% chance (or whatever it is) that the covid-19 situation would be as bad as the market thought it was on February 27, 2020 doesnât seem ridiculous or crazy or a discrediting of the efficient market hypothesis.
(Also note the bias of people only posting about the option trades they do well on, afterward, in retrospect...)
I think it can be hard to remember just how much controversy there was at the time. E.g. you say of March 13, âBy now, everyone knows itâs a crisisâ but sadly âeveryoneâ did not include the California public health department, who didnât issue stay at home orders for another week.
By what date did the majority of LessWrong users start staying at home?
I doubt that there are surveys of when people stayed home. You could maybe try to look at prediction markets but Iâm not sure what you would compare them to to see if the prediction market was more accurate than some other reference group.
Thanks for collecting this timeline!
The version of the claim I have heard is not that LW was early to suggest that there might be a pandemic but rather that they were unusually willing to do something about it because they take small-probability high-impact events seriously. Eg. I suspect that you would say that Wei Dai was âlateâ because their comment came after the nyt article etc, but nonetheless they made 700% betting that covid would be a big deal.
I think it can be hard to remember just how much controversy there was at the time. E.g. you say of March 13, âBy now, everyone knows itâs a crisisâ but sadly âeveryoneâ did not include the California department of public health, who didnât issue stay at home orders for another week.
[I have a distinct memory of this because I told my girlfriend I couldnât see her anymore since she worked at the department of public health (!!) and was still getting a ton of exposure since the California public health department didnât think covid was that big of a deal.]
Is there any better evidence of this than the example you cited? That comment from Wei Dei is completely ridiculous⌠Making a lot of money off of a risky options trade does not discredit the efficient market hypothesis.
Even assuming Wei Deiâs math is right (which I donât automatically trust), the market guessing on February 10, 2020 that there was a 12% chance (or whatever it is) that the covid-19 situation would be as bad as the market thought it was on February 27, 2020 doesnât seem ridiculous or crazy or a discrediting of the efficient market hypothesis.
(Also note the bias of people only posting about the option trades they do well on, afterward, in retrospect...)
By what date did the majority of LessWrong users start staying at home?
I doubt that there are surveys of when people stayed home. You could maybe try to look at prediction markets but Iâm not sure what you would compare them to to see if the prediction market was more accurate than some other reference group.
That seems like the crux of the matter!