Why this prediction is hard to score

1. What Chamath actually predicted
   In the episode’s closing segment, Chamath lays out an optimistic scenario where cheap IgG/IgM antibody tests come online at scale in ~2 weeks, cities are split into “green zones” based on test results, and people can re‑enter restaurants and public life with some form of “papers.” He then says: “We will establish demark zones … green zones … where people who are either negative or who have already gotten it and have tested positive for the antibodies will be allowed to interact. So I am telling you that it's within six weeks from now. Six weeks from now we'll be in restaurants.” (podscripts.co)
   Earlier in the episode, David Friedberg similarly argues that with large‑scale antibody testing of the general population, “we can really … nip this thing in the bud in a … four, five, six week time frame” if the U.S. mobilizes voting infrastructure, the National Guard, etc. (podscripts.co)

   The normalized version you gave captures this as a conditional: if the U.S. rapidly deploys massive antibody testing and zoning as described, COVID spread could be brought under control in ~4–6 weeks.

2. The condition was never met
   The scenario required nationwide, cheap, high‑volume antibody testing used to gate access to “green zones” (workplaces, restaurants, etc.). In reality:

   • Antibody (serology) tests did start rolling out in spring 2020, but their accuracy and interpretation were highly uncertain; the WHO explicitly warned in April 2020 that there was “no evidence” that antibodies conferred reliable immunity and cautioned against using them as the basis for “immunity passports” or risk‑free certificates. (who.int)
   • Civil‑liberties and technical analyses (e.g., EFF) likewise argued that immunity passports based on antibody tests were scientifically weak and logistically problematic, and described such systems as something governments were considering, not implementing. (eff.org)
   • The U.S. never adopted a federal antibody‑based passport / zoning system of the kind Chamath and Friedberg describe; later access controls (where they existed) were largely based on vaccination status, not serology. Contemporary coverage of “immunity passport” debates focuses on proposals and ethical objections, not on any rollout in the U.S. (cnbc.com)

3. What actually happened to COVID in the U.S.
   Irrespective of that hypothetical policy, COVID in the U.S. was not “nipped in the bud” within a few weeks of March 2020:

   • The first major U.S. wave peaked in April 2020, but was followed by substantial summer 2020, winter 2020–21, Delta (2021), and Omicron (late 2021–22) waves, with the national public‑health emergency only ending on May 11, 2023. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • By 2022, over 94% of Americans were estimated to have been infected at least once, and the cumulative death toll exceeded 1.2 million—hardly a situation where spread was brought under control within 4–6 weeks of spring 2020. (en.wikipedia.org)

4. Why the prediction is scored “ambiguous”
   The factual, unconditional hopes voiced on the show—e.g., “six weeks from now we’ll be in restaurants” in a generally safe scenario—were plainly wrong about how the U.S. pandemic actually unfolded.

However, the normalized prediction you supplied is explicitly counterfactual: it asserts that if the U.S. had implemented a very specific, aggressive antibody‑testing‑and‑zoning regime, then spread could have been brought under control in 4–6 weeks. Since that policy mix was never actually tried, we have no direct empirical test of whether it would have worked. Given that:

• The key precondition (nationwide antibody‑based zoning) never occurred, and
• Expert bodies at the time questioned whether antibody status even corresponded to reliable immunity, undermining but not definitively disproving the scenario,

we cannot definitively say whether the conditional “could be brought under control in 4–6 weeks” is true or false. It remains a hypothetical claim about an unrealized policy.

Bottom line:

• The unconditional timing speculation about being safely back in restaurants in ~6 weeks was wrong in practice.
• The conditional, policy‑dependent claim you asked about—what could have happened if a massive antibody‑testing/zoning program had been implemented—cannot be empirically verified or falsified, so it is best labeled ambiguous rather than right or wrong.