Another good idea from the biosecurity literature is "distancing": that any bio threat increases the tendency of people tp distant from each other via quarantine, masks, less travel, and thus R0 will decline, hopely below 1.
Some Chinese may think that it was a bioweapon used against them and may want a retaliation. This is how nuclear-biological war could start.
Maybe because of anchoring effect: everyone on metaculus sees the median prediction before he makes the bet and doesn't want to be much different from the group.
It could have longer tail, but given high R0 large part of human population could be simultaneously ill (or self isolated) in March-April 2020.
What is you opinion, Dave, could this could put food production at risk?
It looks like it almost not affecting children; a person of older age should give himself a higher estimate of being affected.
Thanks. "a bible of new vacuum" is nice, but should be "bubble".
Thanks. I always try to create a full list of possible solutions even if some seems very improbable.
I write it in English. 90 per cent my Russian friends could read English and also they probably know most of these news from different Russian media.
One such uncertainty is related to the conditional probability of x-risks and their relative order. Imagine that there is 90 per cent chance of biological x-risk before 2030, but if it doesn't happen, there is 90 per cent chance of AI-related x-risk event between 2030 and 2050.
In that case, total probability of survival extinction is 99 per cent, of which 90 is biological and only 9 is from AI. In other words, more remote risks are "reduced" in expected size by earlier risks which "overshadow" them.
Another point is that x-risks are by definition one-time events, so the frequentist probability is not applicable to them.
What EY is doing now? Is he coding, writing fiction or new book, working on math foundations, providing general leadership?