Happy to do a small wager at 25% odds if we have someone we both trust to hold the money, or you trust me to do so, up to $100 vs. $300, or we can do $1 vs. $3 symbolically with no trust issues. Judgment would be whatever Scott evaluates to in his prediction evaluation.
Note that I agree that it’s >10% that there is a worthwhile way to use HCQ as part of a treatment strategy. But that’s different from it being the scientific consensus!
For the disclaimer, I would be very, very wary updating from Scott Adams here. He can be insightful, but when he advocates for things that make the administration look good, he’d do that essentially irrespective of truth value. What you’re getting is “here’s the best case I could make given I already wrote the conclusion at the bottom of the page.” So if you do want to update off such things, you need to compare it to how good an argument you expected him to find!
@Zvi The deeper look by Glen below lets me update back to ~40% that HCQ as prophylactic i.e. taken before the infection works. I’m now willing to take my $10 vs. your $30. We would commit here and transfer by PayPal after Scott has resolved. OK?
All right, I accept the wager. Done. Your $10 vs. my $30, PayPal upon Scott’s resolution post. Since it’s been three days, you can back out any time between now and 6⁄22, if you update again or my note below wasn’t properly factored in.
Note that the bet is about what the “scientific consensus” is, rather than whether it actually works—if it works but there’s no consensus, I’d still win. I think a lot of the time, likely more than half the time, that HCQ would work if given correctly, the scientific consensus fails to acknowledge this.
11. Will the scientific consensus end up being that hydroxychloroquine was significantly effective?
UpToDate, the closest thing to a canonical medical recommendation site, currently says: “We suggest not using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine in hospitalized patients given the lack of clear benefit and potential for toxicity. In June 2020, the US FDA revoked its emergency use authorization for these agents in patients with severe COVID-19, noting that the known and potential benefits no longer outweighed the known and potential risks”. False.
What surprised me most in this bet was how the significant number of studies that were started about HCQ—not only in the US—were basically all buried. None show any updates, not even negative results even long after their expected end dates.
Well, how else would we figure out if it actually works. We are not the experts.
Anyway. I take it. I have seen that it got banned by CDC and that would let me update a bit. But I want to move forward and the main motivator of having a bet is that I will follow it until next year :-)
Update: I expect to get in touch by DM here when results are due.
And Re Scott Adams: I know that he is pushing things. He is actually relatively transparent about that part esp. in his Periscopes. He is basically demoing most of his techniques for his audience (and his audience does a lot of the explaining in the replies). I don’t like him as he can be very offending/transgressing but it still possible to learn quite a bit about politics and psychology from him and he is always ahead of the curve.
Happy to do a small wager at 25% odds if we have someone we both trust to hold the money, or you trust me to do so, up to $100 vs. $300, or we can do $1 vs. $3 symbolically with no trust issues. Judgment would be whatever Scott evaluates to in his prediction evaluation.
Note that I agree that it’s >10% that there is a worthwhile way to use HCQ as part of a treatment strategy. But that’s different from it being the scientific consensus!
For the disclaimer, I would be very, very wary updating from Scott Adams here. He can be insightful, but when he advocates for things that make the administration look good, he’d do that essentially irrespective of truth value. What you’re getting is “here’s the best case I could make given I already wrote the conclusion at the bottom of the page.” So if you do want to update off such things, you need to compare it to how good an argument you expected him to find!
@Zvi The deeper look by Glen below lets me update back to ~40% that HCQ as prophylactic i.e. taken before the infection works. I’m now willing to take my $10 vs. your $30. We would commit here and transfer by PayPal after Scott has resolved. OK?
All right, I accept the wager. Done. Your $10 vs. my $30, PayPal upon Scott’s resolution post. Since it’s been three days, you can back out any time between now and 6⁄22, if you update again or my note below wasn’t properly factored in.
Note that the bet is about what the “scientific consensus” is, rather than whether it actually works—if it works but there’s no consensus, I’d still win. I think a lot of the time, likely more than half the time, that HCQ would work if given correctly, the scientific consensus fails to acknowledge this.
Zvi won.
Scott:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-judging-april-covid
hurrah! betting ftw!
What surprised me most in this bet was how the significant number of studies that were started about HCQ—not only in the US—were basically all buried. None show any updates, not even negative results even long after their expected end dates.
Ongoing trials:
https://www.archbronconeumol.org/es-hydroxychloroquine-as-prophylaxis-for-coronavirus-avance-S0300289620301629
(I don’t know where else to post this; last post tagged Coronavirus is months old)
None of the HCQ studies listed on that page seem to have results even though at least some of them are past study completion date.
Well, how else would we figure out if it actually works. We are not the experts.
Anyway. I take it. I have seen that it got banned by CDC and that would let me update a bit. But I want to move forward and the main motivator of having a bet is that I will follow it until next year :-)
Update: I expect to get in touch by DM here when results are due.
And Re Scott Adams: I know that he is pushing things. He is actually relatively transparent about that part esp. in his Periscopes. He is basically demoing most of his techniques for his audience (and his audience does a lot of the explaining in the replies). I don’t like him as he can be very offending/transgressing but it still possible to learn quite a bit about politics and psychology from him and he is always ahead of the curve.
Thank you for offering the bet. I would have taken it. Unfortunately I see it just now that I have an update on the matter. See below.
Entirely fair. Nothing done, then.