Friday assorted links

Comments

Krugman, once brilliant, is off just about everything nowadays, including his rocker.

>Krugman, once brilliant

Yeah, I keep hearing that. But it is LONG past time for people to stop saying it. There comes a point where it was so long ago that it is silly to bring it up. You might as say "Biden, once intelligible, ...."

New trade theory, intra industry trade across borders.....He’s still brilliant.

he’s just a fantastic lesson in how extreme partisanship shuts down all critical thinking. Both of you are also examples of this phenomenon.....

You are correct on all counts.

I might add, the biggest bias of all is the belief that everyone is biased but some are more biased than others and everyone else is more biased than me.

According to Kahneman, being aware of his bias does not make him any less susceptible to his own biases. He says the only remedy is diverse inputs.

Good luck with that.

Basically, judging from current events, we are all f*cked.

The cold civil war will soon turn hot.

Keep your powder dry.

Correction:

You are correct on all counts except your assessment of Krugman.

Other than that, you are ok.

Respond

Add Comment

Don’t mistake the internet for the real world.

For every one of you and anonymous there are 1,000 people who don’t give a shit and just want to indulge their hobbies.

That was sort of true in 1776, though some say it was 1/3 loyalist, 1/3 rebel, and 1/3 please don't loot my bidness and burn my sh*t.

The rebels won.

Btw, many of the loyalist losers fled to Canada.

Maybe that explains Canada.

I love my gun. There are many like it, but ...

When I lived for a time in Canada I was surprised to find that a lot of Anglo Canadians thought the wrong side won in the American war.

And Canada is not even our most populated state!

Canada is a great country and their people are great and good people. But they cannot help themselves from wishing that someone or something would take us Americans down a notch or two. It is ironic, in almost every free country in the world they are jealous of America and dislike Americans; and yet they all wish to move here AND they all know in their hearts that if America were to be destroyed that nothing else on earth would save them from China and Russia taking their country and killing them. Odd, isn't it.

You are delusional if you think all Canadians want to move to America. We see the crazy that is going on there and want to avoid it like the plague.

Only the ones who want to make more money, have a career in an industry that the US has, etc.

Remember that the last Federal election was about shutting down the economy of two provinces. By a guy who wore blackface multiple times. And sacked a Justice minister for not getting involved in a prosecution. Who then sat on his thumbs while the malcontents blocked rail traffic.

Smart Canadians watch US politics as a proxy for the disputes we don't dare talk about.

Respond

Add Comment

Well of course not all Canadians want to move to the U.S. They do want to vacation here and spend the winters here once retired. My family came from Canada. My wife's family too. We visit yearly and we visit them when they stay in Phoenix every winter. Lovely people. I have said before that Canadians are just like Americans but with manners. But they are proud of Canada as well they should be. Hope some of the problems that they invited into their country don't change that. There is a little "crazy" going on in Canada too and even the prime minister is highly questionable. But it is your problem(s) to deal with and I wish you luck.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Meh, i think at the point you become as renowned a columnist as Krugman is, you can't just draw a line around your academic work. To some degree, you have to temper the conclusion by the average of his output.

If 90% of his output is highly partisan to the point of not being remotely objective or correct, but 10% within a narrowly defined circle is brilliant. Then you have to put the qualifier.

For example:

Trump is Brilliant!

vs

Trump is a brilliant self-promoter!

Trump IS brilliant !! If he was simply a self promoter why would he choose the most unsatisfying job in the world. He choose it because he was a patriot and he has been phenomenally successful because he is brilliant. He may well be the last best chance of surviving without a shooting revolution...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I'm trying to be nice.

It's not easy.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The NYT is not worth hating - nothing worth disdaining ever is.

Respond

Add Comment

He still has one more Nobel prize than you.

Laurels

Respond

Add Comment

otoh
crazy uncle paulie has the same number of nobel prizes as kissinger

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#2 "Occupational Licensing". I am a licensed private pilot. I can tell you that it really isn't too hard to operate an airplane but it does require focus and attention to detail. Yes...you can after a few single-digit solo flights pick up the skill quite handily (like driving a car...except flying cars failing means you die...usually), but is such a thing sufficient for confidence by potential passengers paying monetary compensation? The libertarian in me says, "Such a thing - like 'confidence' licensing (which is really what it is) - would naturally occur organically without govt. intervention." Not really. And I - a pilot - would never fly on an airline or in an airplane that did not have pilots certified affirmatively by either the FAA or EASA. I think most people would agree with me. Libertarianism doesn't answer every question.

#5 Looks like Tyler wants another 300+ response posting. There is no battle. The NYT writer wanted a scalp. Period. I miss his blog and I miss that portion of the rationalist community. I already hated NYT. There is a terminal velocity to my hatred meaning I can't hate them anymore than I hate them now. I guess that's a good definition as any, I have reached my maximum ability to hate the NYT, their staff, and their business model as much as humanly possible without planting a bomb in the parking garage.

And just think, there are millions of people out there, including the Very Smart And Serious People in this comment section, whom the New York Times represents, the customer base to which they are pandering.

It's time we send the leftists on their way.

But its pro-Trump to demand secret be revealed! He has pleaded for hackers to get secrets and then have Wikileaks publish them! He's called on China and Russia to hack into databases and publish secrets!

We are all for hacking and publishing "secrets" because we have nothing to hide.

Obama, Biden, HRC, the FBI, CIA, IRS, ... they all have to hide the details of their plot to remove a duly elected POTUS.

So, yes, hack away and publish.

Sunlight is the best ...

Respond

Add Comment

Mulp,

I'm going to go out on a limb and be completely non-partisan and unbiased (in the Robin Hanson - Overcomingbias.com sense of the word) when I ask what does cancelling Scott Alexander and SlateStarCodex accomplish? What does revelation of his real name (or fake name) accomplish? Why did they do a piece on him and the rationalist community to begin with accomplish? Qui Bono, who benefits from him pulling his site of the net (for now....I hope)?

None of these questions are partisan, or philosophically disingenuous, they're just the usual who, what, when, where, and why? I won't even speak to the NYT's motivation (I'm not a mind-reader). Why did this happen? Why do you think this happened?

Because of Reagan.....

Respond

Add Comment

Did you ever see the movie, "Absence of Malice"?

To me, this entire situation has strong parallels to that movie. Particularly the part where Sally Field's character (Megan Carter, the reporter), tries to convince Melinda Dillon's character (Teresa Perrone, who works in a catholic school) to go on the record with an alibi for Paul Newman's character (Michael Gallagher).

Sally Field's character simply has zero clue about what she's asking (actually, planning to do...she doesn't really ask).

I view the NY Times people (the author of the article and editors basically up the command) chain as being like the Sally Fields reporter character. I'll be they've never had their lives threatened (and hopefully they never will). So I think their basic attitude is, "You've done nothing wrong, Scott, so there will be no problem if we tell our readers your full name. And we give our readers all the information."

P.S. This is complete speculation. But it seems like a reasonable possibility.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The NYT in no way, shape, or form represents nor panders to me.

Why so many people are obsessed with it escapes me completely. Nothing is easier to ignore, except possibly Fox News. Or CNN. Or Breitbart. Or MSNBC.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

" have reached my maximum ability to hate the NYT, their staff, and their business model as much as humanly possible without planting a bomb in the parking garage."

Maybe that ought to be a metric. Kind of like the Library of Congress metric.

Respond

Add Comment

> And I - a pilot - would never fly on an airline or in an airplane that did not have pilots certified affirmatively by either the FAA or EASA. I think most people would agree with me. Libertarianism doesn't answer every question.

My only gripe here is the insinuation that the situation in Pakistan is somehow representative of what a more Libertarian system would look like. The core issue is not that the these pilots didn't follow some mandated regulator's process, just that the process was political and corrupt.

Extrapolating the outcome caused by a corrupt, politically controlled regulator, to apply to a hypothetical situation where there is no politically controlled regulator of any kind is a bit of a stretch.

I see your point but my 'libertarian' insinuation stands....

In a pure libertarian system things like nepotism, favoritism, and willingness to overlook any standard of any kind would be 'allowable' under the idea that under such a system people would naturally decide to avoid - at the risk of their lives - any provider of any service that practiced such flagrant disregard for basic safety.

What we have here is people faking 'confidence certification' to delude and deceive others that they are indeed qualified. Even under a pure libertarian system this would be tolerable because A) there would be no such entity to register or certify anything and B) people would - after seeing huge body counts - go elsewhere.

Vis a vis, Pakistan is precisely an example of a more libertarian system. People are faking their licenses to be able to fly a plane (a generally simple and monotonous task once acquainted) and doing a poor enough job to garner scrutiny but not terribly enough to drive their consumer base away. It is a perfect example of libertarianism in action. Whereas in truly FAA/EASA licensed countries your taking a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying while flying/per time you are taking a chance with a Pakistani pilot of 1 in 10,000 (*or maybe less) of dying while flying/per time. Apparently the 1 in 10,000 chance of dying is perfectly acceptable (and has been...) to a large portion of the professional community and the consumer public for quite some time. No harm, no fowl.

And what, exactly, makes you believe government activities are inherently more resistant to nepotism, favoritism, and willingness to overlook standards than private actors?

They're not. What is inherently more resistant to nepotism, favoritism, and willingness to overlook standards is professionals gaining significant occupational benefit - plus monetary compensation - to keeps 'private actors' from diluting their expertise. Now...this could be a government function, but honestly - like the Hanseatic League - wouldn't a private conglomeration act like a government?

I am not a 'proponent' of 'more' government. Far from it. What I am is a professional semi-to-less-than-full expert in something potentially life-threatening wanting to ensure my and other humans survival best-they-can undertaking something that is inherently - but doesn't have to be - risky.

In my 'perfect world' there would and should be some way to let people know that person X, Y, or Z knows what they're doing. This would be coupled with enforcement. Unfortunately, humans have been thus far very bad and creating systems that include an enforcement aspect - natural or not - without government.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Something to consider when analyzing air safety through a libertarian philosophical lens is that the risks of an unqualified pilot are borne not just by the airline owner and the passenger, but also by the people on the ground who are in the flight path, some of whom are in very densely-populated cities. In other words, there are negative externalities to unqualified pilots.

This is very true. Negative externalities definitely exist where large heavy sharp objects are falling out of the sky.

Like I said, there are certain skills and tasks where IT IS VITAL in the true sense of the word to have assurance that person A knows how to do thing B, and moreover to do it well. Usually, this is accomplished with the 'sword of damoclese' hovering over their head.

Humans haven't found a better way yet short of mind-reading. I'm all ears if anyone has one.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Why, exactly, don't you believe that an airline safety equivalent of Underwriters Laboratories would emerge organically, given UL emerged organically?

Not just UL labs, but many private certification and licensing bodies exist where government regulation does not. You should see how much effort my company went to for various ISO certifications, none of which come from the government but which are necessary for doing business in many industries.

Another example is SCUBA diving. A dangerous activity done in a hostile environment, it has a better safety record than most sports, yet the only government regulation involved are DOT regulations for the pressure tanks. Nonetheless, SCUBA diving is one of the most regulated sports around. It's almost impossible to get a charter or even fill a SCUBA tank unless you are licensed by a governing body, and if you open a shop and don't have your shop certified by PADI, NAUI, or DAN, you won't get many customers, and certainly travel agents and cruise lines won't work with you. So pretty much every SCUBA shop has such certifications.

This is not due to government, or even goverment pressure. It was due to an industry realizing that they needed to stay safe if they wanted to stay in business. Or put it another way: If there were no government pilot licenses, do you think airlines would just let anyone fly their planes? Or would the industry develop its own licensing standards?

The experience of SCUBA and other industries says they would, and those licenses would likely be more comprehensive than the government ones. After all, as it is almost no one finishes their pilot's license in the govermnent's minimum time. If it were only government licensing that stopped people from being irresponsible, we should expect people to be trained only to government minimum standards.

If airframe type certificates were all that prevented aircraft manufaccturers from making death traps, we should expect to see airplanes built to minimum government safety standards, and homebuilts, which are almost completely unregulated, to have a much worse safety record. In fact, the safety record of homebuilt aircraft is virtually identical to those with extremely expensive government-supplied type certificates.

Scuba is probably a case of implicit regulation by the court system. In most countries, if you were to take a diver out who hasn't gone through a recognized training program and that person dies, you would probably be criminally prosecuted and sued out of existence.

That doesn't fly. SCUBA shops exist in 3rd world countries, in beach shacks in corrupt countries, etc. SCUBA opeeators don't generally have deep pockets. In fact, one of the reasons SCUBA has avoided government regulation is that it is carried out globally and there is no global governing authority.

Liability plays a part when it comes to cruise lines, charter organizations etc. But SCUBA is generally considered to be an activity with a really high bar for liability because of its voluntary nature. Most lawsuits end with the judge saying the responsibility for safety remains with the diver.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You're making a very good point but I'm not sure SCUBA is a great analogy. Aside from a handful of people inspecting underwater engineering, SCUBA is an entirely unnecessary activity done solely for pleasure. If SCUBA activity stopped tomorrow, the world would continue largely as normal. Like you say, if there was no regulation for SCUBA people would simply stop and do something else instead; the industry needs regulation to survive. If airlines had no regulation then you'd still have plenty of cargo flying above our heads.

SCUBA diving has all the characteristics of an industry that many woild claim needs regulation: It's technical ("How can average people know the quality of a highly technical device? We need product regulation!"), it takes place in a dangerous environment where small mistakes or equipment failure can be fatal, making the need to regulate even stronger.

And yet, through a fluke of history and the nature of the activity, the government regulation never happened. And yet, SCUBA is one of the safest sporfs around. That should make you question whether airplanes woild really fall from the sky if the government didn't regulate them. As should my example of unregulated homebuilt aircraft having as good a safety record as government certified aircraft.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The latest in "Say it with me again; Official. Case. Counts. Don't. Correlate. Well. With. Hospitalizations. Or. Deaths."?

yeah almost nothing besides excess deaths is remotely comparable

Even excess deaths are kind of the best of a bad bunch really, because there are different ways to identify what is "excess", see Heneghan and Oke's - https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/thoughts-on-estimating-excess-mortality-from-covid-19/ -

"Some years have lower counts that are then followed by more deaths in the next year. This is particularly the case in 2014/15 and now 2019/20... Taking a simple average does not account for changes in the structure of the population as well as the variations from year to year... accounting for the yearly variations suggests there are 31,417 excess deaths so far in 2020, which is much less than the 54,000 predicted using the 5-year average."

Most models just use this 5 year average and then what is above that is excess. This is not clearly the right way to do it...

But yeah, excess deaths is the best of a bad bunch and is knowable retrospectively (well retrospectively, not just after death but after death and reporting lag). Hospitalizations is perhaps the best compromise (between the lag of deaths, and the heavy confounds of case counts), but will be confounded by different criteria for hospitalization, treatment, resources, etc.

at this point in the viral pandemic
we think hospitalizations and are probly the best under-rated
and under-reported metric

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1.b, 7.a. What Cowen didn't predict was how difficult is would be to shut down without a lockdown once the economy is re-opened. For example, in Florida Cowen's favorite governor re-opened the economy, even discouraged the use of masks, and now that cases in Florida have spiked, the governor seems to have lost control: his efforts this week to encourage distancing is met with deaf ears (and uncovered faces). It's really hard to un-ring the bell. The governor's supporters now use a different benchmark of "success": deaths per million. Yes, deaths in Florida are relatively low (relative to the states hit hard early like New York), but that's because Florida and other states that re-opened early are experiencing the most new cases among young people, sick for sure but most not dying, not surprising given that young people resumed their highly sociable activities (bars, restaurants, parties) the quickest. Will that "good news" last, or will the infected young people spread the virus to older people. I've already shared my experience last week, which if common portends very bad news in a few weeks. Alas, Americans are an impatient people, believing as they do that what they see today will be what will happen tomorrow.

America’s favorite governor is Cuomo. Whose state has racked up the highest death total in the country, in parts due to delays in responding to the outbreak and the governor’s own decision to send COVID patients into nursing homes.

Additional proof that America no longer gives a flying fig about facts and data.

Proof too, New Yorkers are just as crazy as Californians. I only wish we could put them together and send them to Mexico.

Respond

Add Comment

Tyler’s thoughts were very spot-on. We are stuck on a yo-yo pattern, that’s certain. And treatments are improving. High Vitamin D levels is the first line, prophylactic HCQ, secondary.

The new study from Marseille, France of 3700 confirmed Covid19 patients, using HCQ+Az, found an impressive low 0.9% death rate achieved. And new monoclonal antibodies treatments (see Dr Chris Martinsen’s current review via peak prosperity, 28m, ff), can improve ICU patient outcomes from 50% dead to only 10% death rate. How can these improvements adoption be accelerated?

Tyler’s correct to foresee treatment improvements, uncertainty continuing until a vaccine. Badly, however, recent research says immunity from CV19 exposure lasts a few months or less - much lower than the year seen from SARS 1. And thus, getting a vaccine with long term immune benefits remains more urgent than thought before.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Linking nonsense on Twitter does not a scientific survey make. I suppose "nonsense on Twitter" is redundant. But hey, nonsense is nonsense, whether on Twitter or on popular blogs.

Your posts are nonsense.

that doesn't mean wayward is wrong
about twatter

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Flooding hospital beds with young adults is aok as long as they don't die?

Oh, right, new old drugs cut the 14 days in hospital down to 10 days, so, once Trump and Florida get rid of Obamacare, 10 days in hospital will be free.

What evidence do you have hospitals are flooded with young people? I am pretty sure most healthy people need a couple days of rest and Tylenol.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Of course, Florida's governor hitched his wagon to Trump, believing it would carry the governor to the White House. The governor has merely followed the rest of the Republican Party. I don't understand it, in particular the Florida governor, a smart guy (Yale and Harvard), with good looks and a reputation for competence. Now the good governor has taken on the air of incompetence. Was it because the governor, being an impatient American, believed back early in the year tomorrow would be just like today. It isn't. Actually, it wasn't either. The governor rolled the dice and came up snake eyes. Was it his time at Yale or at Harvard?

NY could use that level of 'incompetence'.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Cowen will be pleased to know that today Florida's governor closed the bars. Speaking of the good governor's inability to un-ring the bell, why do bars have bells and why do bartenders ring them? Ringing in the pandemic?

Respond

Add Comment

So you want governors to keep states locked down for how long? Until the end of the year? Until there is a vaccine? Until the federal government invests in enough testing infrastructure to test everyone multiple time times a month? Remember, the CDC and WHO said masks were bad too. I commend the governors who moved quickly to reopen and hope that they keep their headwinds on the economy modest and sensible.

"I commend the slaughter of the innocents! Let the games begin!"

Which innocents are you talking about?

By now we know a bit more of who is in danger from this thing, and who isn't. And somethings about where it spreads quickly and where it doesn't.

And we also know that lockdowns have a expiry date, which passed about a month ago.

So what are you suggesting?

Respond

Add Comment

Wondering is over the hill and would have the US pursue a sub-optimal policy that benefits the rich and elderly at the expense of the young and middle aged and not-quite-poor.

Young people can go to the bar and grandpa can avoid both the bar and the young people. Testing volume is laughable but there seems to be enough capacity that most folks could do a drive through instant test at many places across the country before visiting grandpa.

Someone who is better at math than me should figure out what a jobless claim curve that has a similar shape to the COVID positive test case curve does to the economy vs a jobless claim curve that has a similar shape to COVID death curve.

I think the govnahs in the south are actually over reacting to a bunch of 16-30 year making up for lost time getting plastered and that the mask-wearing and old populations are probably fine.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yeah I'm waiting to hear what low infection states were supposed to do exactly. Apparently the options are slaughter your population like Cuomo and become a hero and get to reopen your state, or if you keep your deaths low, get rewarded by having to keep your state locked down forever, completely crushing your economy.

A veritable razor's edge.

If people actually wore masks and face shields and gloves, and socially distanced, and regularly disinfected, you might walk that edge and re-open. See many countries.

Here, we both want to re-open and not deal with the facts of a pandemic. See all the people above saying 'younger healthy people will be fine'. Not really the issue. Though this early in the infection, with data trickling in about long-term heart and lung damage, I'm not sure I would be cavalier about that either.

It’s a bit disingenuous because looking at the deaths per capita ( per million)
New York : 1625 per M, New Jersey : 1695 per M and they were in lockdown !
Fl, AZ, CA, TX = 157, 211, 147, 81 respectively ; much lower.
They haven’t had much of a pandemic to their credit. Yes reopening in these states will lead to an increase in cases, but ICU hospitalizations and death rates is what mostly matters and there is not a big jump in ICU hospitalizations.
It's the optimal strategy, protect the old don't worry as much about the young segment. As we know 90% of fatalities are over 60 years old and 99% are over 35 ( source CDC)
As far as long term effects of getting Covid-19 after recovery, they seem to only occur in the most severe cases.

Respond

Add Comment

Wondering: if you share the click bait that led you to believe a cold causes severe permanent organ damage for a large number of "survivors", I will share the links that say a cold physiologically can't do that.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

when we see the word calliope
we smell the reclusive but wide ranging
Willis Allan Ramsey
its like a madeline
http://willisalanramsey.com/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You'd think Tyler would have learned to put Scott Alexander items in stand-alone posts.

Tyler is sort of OCD and has a nearly formulaic pattern. In his mind, this was a minor item that fit under the News For the Day. Thus, that's where it went.

The article is not exactly all that in-depth nor insightful.

True

Respond

Add Comment

The article pushed back on using the term "doxxing" as its normal use implies intent to harrass. But then it also characterized Scott asking people to write the New York Times as asking them to "spam" the paper.

He specifically said Be nice. And if you are someone the NYT tech writers might have a high opinion of, please mention that. Maybe "a lot of emails" = "spam", but I fail to see the negative connotation in this case.

The article pushed back on using the term "doxxing" as its normal use implies intent to harrass. But then it also characterized Scott asking people to write the New York Times as asking them to "spam" the paper.

I was about to send an email to the author of the article objecting to the "spam" characterization. Scott gave the Technology Editor's contact information and asked people who wrote to the Technology Editor to be polite. That's not "spam."

If he'd told people to tell the NYT Technology Editor about ways to make $500 an hour working from home, *that* would be "spam".

Respond

Add Comment

NYT & Media: "Let the masses organize campaigns of totally peaceful pressure to change our institutions".

Also the NYT & Media: "... obviously not when it means so much as talking back to us."

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

7. My job here is pretty much done. Pretty much everyone now understands why we must choose leaders for their leadership. Tautologies that leaders don't matter, because they reflect some ineffable inevitability, are bust.

At this point even Trump knows that he isn't leading, and so he isn't winning. The really tragic thing for the nation is that he can't break out of his own cycle. He can't pivot. He can't "finally become" President. He cannot unite the nation and lead on pandemic response. He has just made his bed, that he is going to lead the "his people" into opening, and if that doesn't work, well that's the way it breaks.

A tragic outcome, and certainly leading to tens of thousands of unnecessary American deaths.

Now, you can make some charts at the state level that hide that reality, but that's all they do. There are no purely blue states. There are no purely red states. Fox News is national television, and Trump is a national President.

Even when a person is solidly blue, like a BLM protester, they are going to be influenced by the zeitgeist. If the president of the United States says "it's over" enough times, even people who don't believe it consciously will believe it unconsciously. Lies and repetition of lies.

Republicans have lied, and rejected the science, and the results are seen across all of America.

(In 2017 I called it, Trump as a one-term president, as a Carter. But even I didn't think it would get this bad, that it would have this high a cost. Either in pandemics, or in the destruction of the Department of Justice.)

Have the basic integrity to stop lying for once.

The protesters do not listen to Trump, they hate them with every fiber of their beings.

How stunningly dishonest to ignore the 1200+ “experts” who said protesting was more important than social distancing.

I'm not lying, you are just arguing a different theory of human intelligence.

You're arguing that behavior in the pandemic is fully conscious and rational.

Obviously not. Everybody is emotionally connecting to and modeling their behavior on everyone around them.

I thought your job was done.

Why not declare victory and give it a rest?

His job is done when he gets the last word in. Or maybe two or three posts past the point where nobody is responding to him.

Respond

Add Comment

We are getting close to that point.

Trump on Biden: "I mean, the man can't speak. And he's going to be your president because some people don't love me, maybe."

Biden won’t be President in 18 months. Either Trump wins, or Biden wins and resigns, due to “health problems” aka dementia, within a few months.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If you want some extra reading, consider this. What I think it shows is that the administration is not in control of its own strategy. This isn't a messaging problem. they are simply unable to be constructive because it would now be backtracking and embarrassing.

Tragic.

https://www.businessinsider.com/first-coronavirus-task-force-briefing-in-two-months-pence-national-accomplishment-flatten-the-curve-2020-6

Respond

Add Comment

Lol.

1) Deciding whether to open is at the state level. Not the POTUS.

2) You’ve now precommitted to ignoring any evidence that goes against your worldview. Yikes

3) You’ve now said BLM protestors and rioters spreading the disease in Democrat controlled municipalities is the fault of the POTUS. This makes zero sense

4)

Republicans have lied, and rejected the science, and the results are seen across all of America.

There won’t be any statistically significant positive correlation between Republican share and Covid deaths. That’s my falsifiable hypothesis. Since it has nothing to do with partisan bullshit and everything to do with public choice constraints.

"There won’t be any statistically significant positive correlation between Republican share and Covid deaths. "

I'll go further, I'll state that by the end of the year. There will be a minimum of 10% more deaths in Blue states than in Red states.

Note: I don't think this has anything to do with partisanship, though. It's primarily geographical. Sure Cuomo's actions with respect to the nursing homes was a really bad call, but overall that's just a rounding error.

Cool Cool.

You'll take high deaths everywhere as your evidence of success.

"high" deaths compared to what?

Germany? Canada? Australia? Greece? Japan?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Tyler posted a graph that clearly shows the New Cases have a nearly identical rise in both Red and Blue states. The post says and demonstrates that this is not a partisan effect.

Respond

Add Comment

I honestly hope Tyler is smarter than you two guys.

The president, the vice president, the Republican governors, the conservative media, have pushed the message that lockdown was unnecessary and that things were over everyone should just open up.

Not to mention the whole mask thing.

Come on. How dumb do you have to be to believe all that messaging only had an effect on red people in red states.

"How dumb do you have to be to believe all that messaging only had an effect on red people in red states."

So now Republicans are responsible for everything bad happening. California is having an outbreak of Covid19 .... and it's clearly the fault of Republicans! /rollseyes

Your partisanship is making you illogical and delusional.

There is fault to be had on both sides and in many areas. I've got no problem with saying that Trump and Pelosi and Cuomo and the hacks at the CDC all share blame.

Stop and think about the meta you're arguing.

You do not deny that Republicans have been pushing premature opening, and opposing mask wearing.

Your final fallback defense for the administration is "but nobody listens to them!"

Seriously? Is this where you thought you would be in 2017?

It seems like the corrolary of this position would be that you are asserting that no-one listens at all to any Democrat state or local governance. Because it has no effect.

Is that where you thought you'd be in 2017?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

In fairness I think J is suggesting only that, at the very minimum, if it had *any* effect, you would expect to see greater effect on Repub states and electorates.

And that there's a nope on that. Which tends to suggest it's mainly bluster and not actually a plausible testable, model.

(Skeptical has one which kind of is! It also suggests that you'll see exactly the same effects in Biden world and you would've seen the same things should the H-Bomb have won. Aka "Electing Biden will 'save' America!" = no, it just ain't gonna be like that.)

Yes, I do agree that Skeptical's hypothesis is better over all. I defer to his superior prediction.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

State your hypothesis. It seems to be:

“Messaging from Fox News is the reason why Cuomo and Newsom issue state level directives regarding Covid”

It’s laughable. An equally stupid hypothesis from a partisan hack on the other side would be:

“Epidemiologists on MSNBC telling everyone protests were more important than preventing the spread of Covid are why cases are spiking in rural state X”

Well here's the thing that's obvious to me.

You respond to me with things I never said.

I respond with facts in evidence:

https://twitter.com/willwilkinson/status/1276585480759529476?s=19

"You respond to me with things I never said."

Skeptical explicitly asked you to "State your hypothesis.".

You can either state something that's clear and testable or just cede the point to him.

Respond

Add Comment

I’m not right wing, so spamming Twitter “Boo outgroup! Boo outgroup!” nonsense isn’t even directed at the right person.

You deliberately avoid citing any facts, you dropped an opinion Boo Outgroup tweet.

If there’s a hypothesis or a fact based worldview in any of your partisan rants, I’m not seeing it. You essentially pre-committed to refusing any evidence that goes against your worldview.

Here’s a hint to see if you’re in crazy mode or thinking rationally: “what measurable outcomes would cause you to change your mind?”

You should be able to frame your opinion in a falsifiable hypothesis like an adult. If by 2021 there’s a statistically significant correlation between Repub share and Covid deaths I would certainly rethink my view on what’s sustainable given public choice constraints.

Here is one I just glanced at:

https://twitter.com/HoustonChron/status/1276574205098823681?s=19

Could it possibly be true that the Texas GOP convention would have a mask optional policy?

If it does, would you two be the last two to defend it?

Yes, “Boo Outgroup.”

Back in the land of sane adults, we’re still waiting.

Here’s a hint to see if you’re in crazy mode or thinking rationally: “what measurable outcomes would cause you to change your mind?”

You should be able to frame your opinion in a falsifiable hypothesis like an adult.

How are you liking that Russia news?

You poor, poor last defenders .. and poor America of course.

At this point Trump isn't just toast, it's "Mom this toast is burned"

Respond

Add Comment

"For those keeping score at home: In the months since the Administration knew about these bounties, the President invited Putin to join the G-7 summit, planned for pulling troops out of Germany and failed to act against growing Russian cyber action in the U.S." - @SangerNYT

Time for another "Russia, lol" from you?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. The pandemic yo-yo is definitely what we got, even if I had higher hopes.

As long as the gyms stay open, I don't care.

But yeah I had higher hopes. And no vaccine yet either...

That does kind of demonstrate the fundamental problem.

Wanting gyms open, and wanting to defeat the pandemic, are desires at odds.

> That does kind of demonstrate the fundamental problem.

The cost to me of closing the gym is very high, and the cost to me of going to the gym approaches zero. The cost to society of me going to the gym while otherwise socially distancing is (likely) close to zero as well. Recall infections per contact is not static.

Again, I don't really care at this point. Life sucks and all I want is some structure to my day and some purpose in life -- namely getting my ass from flat back to phat and squatting mad weight.

Respond

Add Comment

anonymous, open your eyes. No ones want to defeat the pandemic anymore. You're the last one. You've lost.

The famous saying is "lead, follow or get out of the way."

Don't be this guy:

https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1276650650919669762?s=09

Get out of the way.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. Regardless of the political process, the pain of shutdown is unavoidable as a consequence of uncontrolled community spread. Houston will likely provide another example of how people react to overflowing hospitals. Call it virus choice economics.

And nothing about how Fast Grants will make an impact?

Respond

Add Comment

#4: "Earlier this month, New York Times media columnist Ben Smith noted that immediately following Bennet’s departure, two employees reacted in Slack with an emoji of the word “guillotine,” prompting internal complaints and a public reprimand from a Times spokesperson. "

Criticism will not be tolerated!

Respond

Add Comment

"Krugman is about the most “off” person you can read on this topic)"

Was there a Krugman link that I missed? Or did Tyler just slam him out of the blue?

could be his incessant covid causality pimping
(its all republicans fault)

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

6. So does anyone have a good idea how large the undercount is when using only antibody testing to determine past infection?

CDC had a press briefing yesterday. Cases are probably 10 times what are counted when you look at serology data. Doing a daily newsletter since mid-March, I have been tracking all of this. My own personal feeling is that the rate is higher than 10 fold. However, there is not enough data to make any better guess than that. The number is important as it will give a better idea of the case report fatality rate. Most of us who have more than a passing acquaintance with this think it will ultimately be between 0.3 - 0.6% which is higher than normal seasonal influenza. In our lifetime, the 1957-58 epidemic was 0.3% in the UK who had the best numbers.

the paper that Tyler linked to is very interesting and points out another feature of this viral infection that is poorly understood.

With 2.47 million cases and 126,000 deaths, if CDC is right, IFR is at least 0.5%. There are a number of studies that involve random sampling of antibodies at this point and the median of them seems to hover around 0.5% or 0.6%. Interestingly, the much maligned Neil Ferguson estimated it at 0.66% for China.

There was hype about CDC's "best estimate" of IFR being lower but they still have not provided justification for this estimate and, indeed, seem to contradict it with their more recent public statements.

He estimates it higher on a Western demography, about 1%. (0.5% is about the plausible median of where the much maligned John Ioannidis put it, as well, in his corona article).

But it's the Ferg's modelling - which is his speciality and most influential topic - that his group is, very fairly, maligned for (exploding exponential growth in hospitalizations! compulsory lockdowns a massively effective NPI, and the only one that works at all!). Not so much the IFRs.

Ioannidis deserves to be maligned for putting his name on a paper that was based pretty much on junk science. the principal author still has not responded to all the critics. I doubt the Santa Clara serology study ever gets published.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

IFR of course depends on how gets it. If we end up with out-of-control transmission among the young, and it's already burned through the nursing homes, IFR will drop.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I don't, but this might be relevant.

"Coronavirus may have infected 10 times more Americans than reported, CDC says" - Reuters

Respond

Add Comment

Depends entirely on the region and country really; relative differences are obvious but there's no baseline and quantification of degree of "undercounting". Even within a large country, obviously New York City is enormously undercounted but other US regions may not be as much,

Serology seems useful, but a caution about that is some stuff Francois Balloux has recently been highlighting on his twitter (https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois) - it seems that there is some evidence detectable serological signal may rapidly fade, despite T-cell immunity being retained.

This of course doesn't mean reinfection panic (for which there is still approximately zero evidence for however many million cases there are now).

But besides overweighting the infection:fatality ratio, that means that some populations may have a serological profile that overweights their susceptability. In extreme cases where high enough infection and lag in sero testing are combined, it may be plausible that you even get "herd immunity" without actually being able to detect that a population had it... (and lead to the ironic situation of everyone hunkering in their bunkers despite being immune enough that its pointless).

Respond

Add Comment

Antibody testing counts show that a person was infected long enough to develop antibodies. In some cases, perhaps because of a strong innate immune response + T cell mediated response and/ or a low viral dose, people clear the virus very quickly and antibodies don't develop.
This happens with other viruses like Hepatitis C.
That's what the paper is proposing. Another paper claimed this is because of previous exposures to other HCoVs.
This one says cross reactivity doesn't quite explain it. It doesn't claim these people are immune to reinfection. Perhaps if exposed to a large does they could actually be re-infected.
I think they are effectively immune and looking at the decline of the epidemics in places like NYC and the seroprevalence there, the incidence of these people which I call hardly susceptible, hardly infectious is probably around 15%. So seroprevalence is an undercount , not of the once infected but of the effectively immune.
What does this mean for the epidemic ? It declines faster than people expect. If you use masks and keep R to 1.5 or lower, the herd immunity threshold is reached at 33% immune which has already been reached in places like NYC.

Thanks, that is helpful, especially the prediction about the future course of the virus in NYC (which should look like a place with near herd immunity according to the combined seroprevalence studies and estimates of people hardly susceptible around 15%).

Yes, that is a useful summary and explanation from CitH. And cause for some hope, although OTOH there's also this: "Perhaps if exposed to a large does they could actually be re-infected." I.e. we don't yet know if they are effectively immune to a large dose.

The careers that are in the spotlight these days: immunology. Epidemiology. Contact tracing.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

over the last 3 months your catlike reflexes have declared herd immunity at 60%, 20% and now 33%

It depends on R , please read the posts correctly, herd immunity threshold HT =1 - 1/R . if R=1.5 it's 33%.
if people are not using masks like at the beginning of the epidemic, and depending on location,then R could be higher 2 to 2.5 for example, this makes HT is higher

if "herd immunity" depends on an (R) inclusive of masks & social distancing it is not "herd immunity" as it was originally defined.
is it?

R0, is the expected number of secondary cases
produced by a single (typical) infection in a completely susceptible population.
It's a starting point. It's not a biological constant for a pathogen. Some models keep it a constant because they don't know how to handle a non constant R.
There's an effective reproduction number which some people call Re and which I call R which is a function of time and place and conditions . It's not a constant. In crowded areas it's higher, when people protect themselves ( in whichever way) it's lower.
It's a byproduct of simple models to make everything homogeneous.
Herd immunity depends on R not an immutable R0

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You have to understand, everyone in Austin, Texas gets their food from HEB. HEB is life. HEB has far more immediate importance than any governing entity at any level. We have been required to wear masks in HEB for a good 6 or eight weeks? The mayor followed suit though I can't recall when, but well before the current case spike. (I am trying to remember when I created my mask, it seems long ago now, and I was dilatory about it compared to all my fellows.) There was about a week or ten days when the deadline passed and the mayor's mask orders were lifted, but then they reinstated it. During that brief period I went in the grocery store without a mask, free of the hated thing and free at last to kill people - and there were only two or three others who had done likewise. We have a *very* compliant population - the young people on the local reddit almost seem to rebel in just this direction - and mask-wearing has been almost universal for some time. If anything, the masks should be somewhat discredited at this point.

that's probly why gov. Abbott wisely closed the bars

Respond

Add Comment

This might have some explanatory value:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/austinhosp-1.png

Maybe so. I've kind of quit pondering things we'd never be allowed to know anyway. I'm already inclined to think it's just the natural path of the virus, which not being sentient doesn't care all that much about our mitigating efforts, the intensity of which coincided with a period of much smaller viral incidence in the population. So they were "effective." Now we're stuck pretending that masks prevent the virus from spreading even though breath has little force and more significantly no one has coughed in public in 2 months; and the virus is spreading anyway during our time of most obsessive mask use.

Today I walked to the grocery store, the notHEB, and realized halfway there I had neglected to bring my mask. I discovered that my reusable bag was easy to tie on my head and sufficed very well. Technically reusable bags aren't allowed for bagging one's groceries anymore but fortunately they weren't policing that.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

92% to 95% of Americans remain uninfected with corona.

Respond

Add Comment

#5 Well, on one hand, I surely do not like doxxing per se, but, on the other hand, I think Mr. Scott's anti-Brazilian instance was horrible and deserved much more scrutiny than it has gotten.

"Mr. Scott's anti-Brazilian instance"

I don't understand what your intended meaning is here.

When you say "anti-Brazilian" do you just mean using a pen name?

And is this some sort very dry sarcasm where you are making fun of people who oppose the use of pen names. I'm not tying to start a flame war I just want to know what you mean. You have brought this up several times and it looks like you think that "anti-Brazilian" is a term (I can't find it anywhere) and that the people described by it are bad somehow. I guess I am having trouble believing that there are people who don't understand privacy or compartmentalization. Please explain what you mean.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

we still think you leftist elites are under-rating
asymptomatic infectiousness/spread of covid 19

Respond

Add Comment

we agree
someone should inform comrade houseplant biden and
comrade j "the penguin" nadler

Respond

Add Comment

O/T. Re regulatory state failure.

The US District Attorney system cannot be accused of being an entrenched bureaucracy that is impervious to control from senior appointees.

On the contrary, it's behavior and priorities very much reflect that of the President, and on those rare occasions that a DA goes off script, there's usually hell to pay and changes made rapidly.

Under the control of AG Barr. Well... Res ipsa loquitur.

So, compare and contrast the outcomes and role in democracy of the AG system versus, say the FDA.

Respond

Add Comment

A more interesting link for TCEC is https://tcec-chess.com/ where you can watch the superfinal live.

Respond

Add Comment

Sorta O/T.

I am really, really tired of seeing infection count numbers presented as raw numbers rather than in the context of relationship to trends, or some baseline, or per capita.

I don't know why this is so hard for everyone. But they have the same problem with budget discussions.

Respond

Add Comment

#1 Western media coverage of Sweden is infuriating. It is actually beginning to sound like they are conspiring to portray Sweden as a "disaster" and "failure" simply to hype the virus. I've been following Sweden closely since the start and the disconnect between reality and coverage has become ever more stark. Today in particular the BBC was filled with stories about Sweden seeing a "dangerous" upsurge in cases, to which Tegnell responded that the WHO's warning was a "total mistake" which failed to account for Sweden's recent expansion of testing.

Meanwhile, as noted at the link, and in Sweden's data on ICU Covid patients, the trend in ICU care has been relentlessly downward, despite the upsurge in "cases," which, btw, began at least 3 weeks ago:

https://www.icuregswe.org/en/data--results/covid-19-in-swedish-intensive-care/

I only hope that the Swedes have the humility not to gloat when they are in an even clearer position to tell everyone "I told you so," because that day is surely coming fast.

The thing is, anyone with any shred of sanity left on the topic *knew* that jump was related to testing and recording and not true infection jump, as soon as they saw it.

But here's the response of a, by accounts highly competent and intelligent population geneticist, who deals with statistical properties all day, which I saw last week - https://twitter.com/FerRacimo/status/1273147516184408065

"So at what point is it kosher to start calling Anders Tegnell "Dr Död"?"

Says it all really. Competent life sciencist says "Anders Tegnell = Josef Mengele" is peak "This is your brain on Sweden covid insanity"...

To my complete astonishment, we have to count the esteemed WHO as those lacking any shred of sanity:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53175459

Tegnell was recently quoted as saying it's as if the "world went mad" with lockdowns. I think he was quoted in the expectation that he would appear self-evidently crazy. I hope we don't have to wait too long to realize maybe that wasn't such a batty thing to say, and that this happens before I begin to lose my sanity.

Tengall hasn't won his bet. And he has not lost it. But the people saying we would know he had won or lost a month ago were wrong. So it is today. His bet is a long-run bet, you should let it play out.

It is very much a long run bet, and with something around 94% of the Swedish population uninfected, still has a long way to run.

Those seroprevalence studies are nowhere near accurate enough to conclude a percentage of previously infected to the degree of accuracy of +/- 1 percent. It could well be 90% uninfected, or less.

Such studies are part of Sweden's strategy, and they are certainly attempting to do them as accurately as possible. In part to compare the results against the models guiding their actions. Turns out their models do not agree with reality either.

The virus is still new, and we are still learning. But it is always a good idea to recognize when your argument increasingly depends on dismissing data that disagrees with it, it might be time to reexamine what is going on. Much of what we believe accurate today concerning this disease will likely be seen as inadequate or misleading in a year.

Sweden's strategy is a longer term one, but till today, it too is not working as anticipated. A fact acknowledged by the person most associated with it.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yes, the infamous (or should be infamous) placing if Sweden on a list of places experiencing exploding case counts.

The WHO's justification for that (as quoted in Bloomberg) was fairly lame, effectively claiming that as the test positivity rate was constant after increasing testing there *must* be a leap in true infections.

Of course the reason why this is not true would be obvious to a child; the increase in testing can easily combine with an increase in targeting testing that maintains the positivity of tests. And since ICU is constant, this is quite likely to be the case... (The WHO is not alone in this error; I've seen it off repeated recently by people who ought to know better.)

It seems like hyper-correction on the WHO's part; they were slow on initial guidance, so want to be early on any new resurgence. But they will not gain credibility on this simply by leaping on phantom resurgences and effectively punishing those who build more effective testing regimes ("slow the testing guys" is a bad joke with bad timing, but the incentives it can illustrate are real).

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"#1 Western media coverage of Sweden is infuriating."

Western media is often biased towards the Outgroup. It's just the first time that I can recall where they considered Sweden the Outgroup. The Outgroup is always portrayed in the worst manner. Their motives are maligned, their chose path is described as ignorant at best, and often as maliciously stupid. Examples are cherry picked and Like minded experts are interviewed to give the condemnation the proper authority.

It's rare any longer to have two talented representatives on at the same time and to have them debate the subject. At best it follows the model of InGroup representative stages debate, OutGroup representative responds, then an "independent" third party who just so happens to agree with the IInGroup concludes.

"I only hope that the Swedes have the humility not to gloat when they are in an even clearer position to tell everyone "I told you so,""

LOL, that's not how the game is played. Sweden will never get to gloat, because they'll never get the chance too even if Sweden's approach turns out to be good. The Media will cherry pick the cases that were lucky and compare those to Sweden and then matter will be dropped.

Sweden should count it's blessing that we don't send them the usual treatment we employ for nations on the outs.

They'd end up ruled by Saddam; attacked by bin Laden; and suffering from roving right wing murder squads disappearing nuns, union leaders, and journalists; while wondering how they ended up hopelessly in debt to Wall Street and no longer owning their own resources.

Respond

Add Comment

'Sweden will never get to gloat'

As noted by Tegnell himself - "If we were to encounter the same disease again, knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would settle on doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done."

When asked if too many people had died too soon, Dr Tegnell said, "Yes, absolutely." www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52903717

Of course, by the things others have done, he likely means simply acting earlier... Not lockdowns...

Another simple thing would be universal mask wearing (hopefully not including improvised cloth masks due to having an adequate amount of higher grade supplies). There are many lessons to be learned in responding to a new disease, and there is no question that Sweden is attempting to learn from its experience, which is currently worse than its local peers.

They are not gloating, nor do they have feeling they should. The very idea seems quite distant from Tegnell's perspective and his attempt to deal with a pandemic. It is bizarre, yet undeniable, that many people care nothing about learning about and reacting to a new virus, but instead remain wedded to their own increasingly irrelevant positions.

Indeed there are things to learn; Sweden does deserve to gloat over the camp of nations that effectively acted late, then locked down considering it superior to other NPIs (effectively Britain, led by Neil Ferguson), but not over countries that acted earlier, with more comprehensive use of largely voluntary NPIs... particularly Japan, as Jason K has pointed out, clearly the greatest of all nations in the pandemic in its policy and public health response (focusing on all the right things, at the right time, and none of the wrong things, at the wrong times).

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I happen to be quite liberal, but I find the way in which Covid infections have turned into a partisan issue quite frustrating.

I live in a Blue state in a very liberal city (<15% of the city population voted for Trump in 2016) and mask use is maybe 60% around here. I have friends in Europe and lots of people there are packing beaches, eating at restaurants, etc. This clearly isn't a liberal vs conservative issue but here in America we have to make EVERYTHING about liberal vs conservative. It is exhausting.

I think the far more relevant divide is between Western cultures and Asian cultures (which put far more emphasis on collective responsibility). Good friends living in Singapore and Japan have told me how no one over there can believe the way the Western world has handled this.

Very true. The family and I took a trip to S Carolina's beaches a week ago. Not too many people wearing masks in the 4 states I was in. We brought them just in case, but only had to wear them at a Costco. One rest stop with a large food court was about 50/50. The car trip by far outweighed covid as a risk to us. Some places you need it, some you don't. Be wary of anyone going on about masks - whether 0 or 100% use.

Respond

Add Comment

+1 People won’t abandon their political priors/bias until ALOT more treasure and blood has been sunk. Try a million US deaths and a whole year of GDP. And will Tyler ever post a link when he is wrong about a prediction. Doubtful. One of the charming aspects of SSC was Scott would post his yearly predictions (with degree of certainty) and then review it a year later.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

7. Good thing it is not spreading quickly in Florida, like an inevitable pandemic might.

Respond

Add Comment

#7. Ecological fallacy seems like a huge issue here, especially with Blue counties in Red states and Red counties in Blue states. I take Nate Silver's take over lots of other pundits. But if we're trying to get at how partisanship appears to influence attitudes and behavior related to the pandemic, surveys would be helpful and suggest a partisan divide. For example: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-health-tracking-poll-may-2020/

Respond

Add Comment

We are not "yo-yo"-ing at a national level. Outbreaks in any one city are following the usual (lockdown-oblivious) path, more-or-less indistinguishable from Sweden, while new outbreaks are beginning in places that previously had not at much spread and so have large susceptible populations. The addition of these local events, combined with much more testing, gives the impression of a distinct second wave in cases averaged over the whole US.

Respond

Add Comment

since arson is now socially acceptable
-why don't we toss "heterogeneity" into the fire and use "prevalence" instead
-the same goes for any red/blue fallacies visa vee the covid 19 virus
trust us masked swedish cannibals it will increase the signal/noise ratio

Respond

Add Comment

#3 The headline of the article and blurb, exaggerate the situation. Bassi is not arguing that quantum mechanics is "totally wrong" and is only barely a rebel and then in the narrowest sense. He's basically a quite mainstream, well published, physicist exploring variations on conventional quantum mechanics interpretations that are so subtle that current experimental apparatus are just only on the verge of being able to prove or disprove his theories in the next decade or so. The theory he is advancing regarding what triggers a wave function collapse in quantum mechanics is an area where there are competing proposals and there is no one scientific consensus (although his approach would be a minority view). He's also part of the collaboration working on one of the three experiments at the ultra-establishment Large Hadron Collider measuring the precise values of physical constants in the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

There is this delusion, continuously promoted by some media like Quanta and New Scientist that Quantum Mechanics should be made more classical.
Lubos Motl debunked these "objective collapse " theories. They make wrong predictions like huge heat capacities of atoms. See here

https://motls.blogspot.com/2016/07/grw-style-objective-collapse-theories.html

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Any updates on Fast Grants?

Applications are paused

Due to receipt of a very large number of qualified submissions, Fast Grant applications are currently paused. If Fast Grants secures additional funding, we will resume issuing new grants. Sign up if you’d like to be notifed if we reopen applications:

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Andrew Sullivan sounding the alarm.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/andrew-sullivan-you-say-you-want-a-revolution.html

+1, that's a well written piece

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

7. Covid-19 cases and local partisanship.
---
This is becoming a battle of the public sector unions. The pie ihas shrunk. Covid is the excuse.

Respond

Add Comment

Several Times staffers pushed back, noting that the paper was not “doxxing” Alexander, as that term is widely used to describe situations where the goal of revealing a person’s identity is specifically to encourage harassment.

Whereas the NYT's plan was apparently to point out that the site's audience included a lot of tech VCs with unorthodox social views.

Clearly, no harassment was anticipated.

Respond

Add Comment

No one has to comment on this pandemic, but, if you do, please remember, we can look it up later. Think twice on this subject.

hey ropes p. error that's pretty dramatic
are you gonna activate the shame cult/mob

7 "Our results indicate that epidemiological data relying only on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may lead to a substantial underestimation of prior exposure to the virus"

do you think this is the reason the cdc thinks covid exposure is 10 times
what the current numbers suggest?

lets review your points
-noone "has" to comment
-if someone comments and you don't like it
you can "look it up"
-we better" think twice"
so heres where we ask -what happens after you "look it up"
what are you gonna do then?
whats is gonna be the leftist wreckoning or the shame cult?
we eagerly await your response!

It's on your resume. Forever. What people make of you in the future, we'll let them decide.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The figures for US daily new cases are now higher than they have ever been and the seven day average is also higher than it's ever been. Hopefully, the death rate won't go back to what it was, but it obviously will rise. Seeing this, people in other nations are saying...

"America is... weak..."
"So what should we do?"
"I don't know. Feel unjustifiably proud that our public health system can cope with a particularly bad cold?"

Respond

Add Comment

Don't let Americans in, that a travel ban is necessary to protect themselves from being exposed to an ongoing risk of the pandemic spreading .

Yes, no one is coming in here without testing and two weeks quarantine. But that's been going on so long now it's a given. (There's still a fair bit of humanitarian travel. I'd say not enough given that it's a nasty respiratory virus and not a Racoon City style zombification virus.)

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment