10 technologies that might exist in 5 years

Plus

Ṁ3006

2029

31%

TB vaccine that works in adults

24%

Strep A vaccine

33%

Malaria monoclonal antibody

21%

Bugs that stop malaria spreading (including rural)

64%

Hep C vaccine

51%

Stroke reducing drug that most patients can take

19%

Heb B complete cure

90%

Test that tells you why you're sick (COVID vs flu vs strep throat vs cold)

13%

Programmable drugs before a future pandemic

10%

Syphilis vaccine

Inspired by this post: 10 technologies that won't exist in 5 years (wayback machine) The post claims all of these would be achievable within 5 years but there will not be sufficient funding. Also, note the footnotes with some relevant details.

Published "Feb 2, 2024" and "in 5 years" means this closes "Feb 2, 2029".

Each answers resolves YES if the technology exists by the close date.

If no success can be found, answers resolve NO after the close date. When in doubt, I would tend towards NO to be favorable to the author.

I have no clue about these medical science stuff, so clarifying comments are appreciated. Ideally, we can reach the author to resolve these.

This question is managed and resolved by Manifold.

#️ Medicine

#Science

Get

1,000

and

3.00

15 Comments

18 Holders

86 Trades

Sort by:

bought Ṁ5 YES

The title and description are opposites.

@Pykess agreed, it would make it less confusing for bettors if it was retitled to "10 technologies that will exist within 5 years" or smth

@Bayesian Turned it into "might exist"

In their footnotes, the author says that 100,000 people have to take the drug before it counts as "available." Is this also the definition you are using @marktwse?

@Arky oh wow that's a very different requirement than I thought seemed implied by the market question. would be a bummer imo if that was required but up to marketwise

@Arky Yes, I want to stay as close as possible to the author. Description says "Ideally, we can reach the author to resolve these."

I added a link to the footnotes to the description.

COVID vs flu definitely exists, and I'd guess adding the other two is possible but perhaps not economic.

@PS Footnote 14 of this page specifies that the "test that tells you why you're sick" has to be for at least three diseases, not just COVID and flu.

@Arky Yes, I got that far as well :)
I meant to say that I think we're almost there, and the reason there are no 3-fold tests (if there aren't) might be that they are not useful enough.

@PS Oh my bad, there was some talk on the discord about the COVID vs flu test counting and I thought your comment was also claiming that

@Arky @marktwse cold is caused by many pathogens (rhinovirus, adenoviruses, enteroviruses, coronaviruses other than flu, in fact the list is very long). Is it enough to add one more causing pathogen to the test? For example detects COVID, influenza (flu) and RSV?

Are we betting on whether they exist or if they don't exist? :)

@Thomas42 Great point! I extended the description. YES = exists is more intuitive I think even if the title phrases it negatively.

sold Ṁ5 YES

@marktwse you should change the title to reflect this.

Related questions

Related questions