Category: Science
Trump Administration Launches Probe Into Yale’s Use of Hacked EJMR Data
Christopher Brunet offers his version of the story. While I believe the original research methods were unethical, I very much prefer not to have the federal government involved in this matter.
Hayek Goes Supersonic
When I post about lifting the ban on supersonic flight, smart commenters show up with charts: optimal fuel burn is at Mach 0.78–0.84, they say, or no one wants to pay thousands to save a few hours. Maybe. But my reply is always the same: Bottled water!
In 2024, Americans spent $47 billion a year on H₂O that they could get for nearly free. That still boggles my mind—but bottled water has passed the market test. I argue for lifting the SST ban, and similar policies, not because we know supersonics will work but because we don’t. Hayek reminds us that competition is a discovery procedure. Like science, markets generate knowledge by experiment—hypotheses are posted as prices, and the public accepts or rejects them through revealed preference. Fred Smith’s FedEx plan got a “C” in the classroom, but the market graded the experiment and returned an A in equity. Theory is great, but just as in science, there is no substitute for running the experiment.
Supersonics Takeoff!
In Lift the Ban on Supersonics I wrote:
Civilian supersonic aircraft have been banned in the United States for over 50 years! In case that wasn’t clear, we didn’t ban noisy aircraft we banned supersonic aircraft. Thus, even quiet supersonic aircraft are banned today. This was a serious mistake. Aside from the fact that the noise was exaggerated, technological development is endogenous.
If you ban supersonic aircraft, the money, experience and learning by doing needed to develop quieter supersonic aircraft won’t exist. A ban will make technological developments in the industry much slower and dependent upon exogeneous progress in other industries.
When we ban a new technology we have to think not just about the costs and benefits of a ban today but about the costs and benefits on the entire glide path of the technology
In short, we must build to build better. We stopped building and so it has taken more than 50 years to get better. Not learning, by not doing.
… I’d like to see the new administration move forthwith to lift the ban on supersonic aircraft. We have been moving too slow.
Thus, I am pleased to note that President Trump has issued an executive order to lift the ban on supersonics!
The United States stands at the threshold of a bold new chapter in aerospace innovation. For more than 50 years, outdated and overly restrictive regulations have grounded the promise of supersonic flight over land, stifling American ingenuity, weakening our global competitiveness, and ceding leadership to foreign adversaries. Advances in aerospace engineering, materials science, and noise reduction now make supersonic flight not just possible, but safe, sustainable, and commercially viable. This order begins a historic national effort to reestablish the United States as the undisputed leader in high-speed aviation. By updating obsolete standards and embracing the technologies of today and tomorrow, we will empower our engineers, entrepreneurs, and visionaries to deliver the next generation of air travel, which will be faster, quieter, safer, and more efficient than ever before.
…The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shall take the necessary steps, including through rulemaking, to repeal the prohibition on overland supersonic flight in 14 CFR 91.817 within 180 days of the date of this order and establish an interim noise-based certification standard, making any modifications to 14 CFR 91.818 as necessary, as consistent with applicable law. The Administrator of the FAA shall also take immediate steps to repeal 14 CFR 91.819 and 91.821, which will remove additional regulatory barriers that hinder the advancement of supersonic aviation technology in the United States.
Congratulations to Eli Dourado who has been pushing this issue for more than a decade.
Ideological Reversals Amongst Economists
Research in economics often carries direct political implications, with findings supporting either right-wing or left-wing perspectives. But what happens when a researcher known for publishing right-wing findings publishes a paper with left-wing findings (or vice versa)? We refer to these instances as ideological reversals. This study explores whether such researchers face penalties – such as losing their existing audience without attracting a new one – or if they are rewarded with a broader audience and increased citations. The answers to these questions are crucial for understanding whether academia promotes the advancement of knowledge or the reinforcement of echo chambers. In order to identify ideological reversals, we begin by categorizing papers included in meta-analyses of key literatures in economics as “right” or “left” based on their findings relative to other papers in their literature (e.g., the presence or absence of disemployment effects in the minimum wage literature). We then scrape the abstracts (and other metadata) of every economics paper ever published, and we deploy machine learning in order to categorize the ideological implications of these papers. We find that reversals are associated with gaining a broader audience and more citations. This result is robust to a variety of checks, including restricting analysis to the citation trajectory of papers already published before an author’s reversal. Most optimistically, authors who have left-to-right (right-to-left) reversals not only attract a new rightwing (left-wing) audience for their recent work, this new audience also engages with and cites the author’s previous left-wing (right-wing) papers, thereby helping to break down echo chambers.
That is from a new paper by Matt Knepper and Brian Wheaton, via Kris Gulati. If it is audience-expanding for researchers to write such papers, does that mean we should trust their results less?
My Conversation with the excellent John Arnold
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Tyler and John discuss his shift from trading to philanthropy and more, including the specific traits that separate great traders from good ones, the tradeoffs of following an “inch wide, mile deep” trading philosophy, why he attended Vanderbilt, the talent culture at Enron, the growth in solar, the problem with Mexico’s energy system, where Canada’s energy exports will go, the hurdles to next-gen nuclear, how to fix America’s tripartite energy grid, how we’ll power new data centers, what’s best about living in Houston, his approach to collecting art, why trading’s easier than philanthropy, how he’d fix tax the US tax code and primary system, and what Arnold Ventures is focusing on next.
Excerpt:
COWEN: Say there’s a major volcanic event, and there’s a lot of ash in the sky for two or three years. Solar needs a backup. In the meantime, before the volcanic event happens — and of course, that’s quite rare — how much do we need to be up and running with the backup energy infrastructure? What do we need for reserve capacity in case the solar goes down?
ARNOLD: Good question. It would be difficult. It’s doable today. I think as solar continues to grow in market share, both in the US and globally, it will have to be met with some type of battery, a significant battery resource. That’s part of the economics of solar now, that it’s not just sticking it right outside of Phoenix, but it is solar plus transmission or solar plus battery. The question of what happens in that type of event — it would be difficult. The existing energy infrastructure is still largely around.
COWEN: But it will dwindle over time, right?
ARNOLD: It will dwindle over time.
COWEN: Is there some market issue? Say the volcanic event is only once every 150 years, but sooner or later, one happens. In the meantime, you need economic incentives for the gas or the nuclear to be ready. Does our government just keep on paying for those for 149 years in a row until the catastrophe comes?
ARNOLD: It’s a great question, and I think this is why nuclear, and particularly next-gen nuclear, is considered the holy grail, right? You’re not constrained by location. You’re not constrained by, is the wind blowing, is the sun shining? And it’s a clean resource. The problem today is just economics. In order to develop the current generation of nuclear, it’s extraordinarily expensive. Next generation — either small modular fission or fusion — both have a number of technological as well as unclear economics in how they compete.
I do think this question of how do you do this transition in a manner that maintains affordability but continues to get cleaner and lower emissions over time is a complex one, and I think it’s one that the environmentalists probably oversold five years ago in saying that this was going to be an easy transition. It’s certainly not. Just the scale and scope of the energy system is enormous, as you’re pointing to in your question. The need for backup, the need for a diversity of fuels, and how they complement each other is real, and you can’t replace that just with the intermittent resources we have today, plus battery.
And:
COWEN: What’s your most optimistic scenario for the US energy future from an environmental point of view, something that could plausibly happen?
ARNOLD: I think next-gen nuclear, if we can overcome the technical hurdles, if we can overcome the economic hurdles.
COWEN: But isn’t NIMBYism the biggest hurdle? The others I could imagine overcoming pretty readily, but I live in Fairfax County, which builds a fair amount. People there just don’t want nuclear. It’s irrational, but I’m not sure they’ll change their minds. It could be called fusion; it’s still nuclear to them.
ARNOLD: Yes, I’ve been surprised. That was my prior five years ago. I’ve been surprised at the number of jurisdictions that are inviting these next-gen nuclear companies to come. Texas, for instance, just passed a bill creating new incentives for nuclear companies to come and build their first plants and pilot projects in Texas. You see jurisdictions that are choosing to take the economic growth associated with it and that have more of a building culture and say, “Come here.”
I think, as things get proven out, then the question is, will the Fairfax counties of the world see what’s going on and become more agreeable to having that? I think it’s very similar to self-driving cars.
There’re some jurisdictions that say, “Come here. We want you to come, test,” and this is what’s happening in Texas. These companies say, “We want you to come pilot your projects here.” And some jurisdictions are saying, “No, prove it out, and then we’ll talk.”
COWEN: My nightmare is that even Texas becomes NIMBY. You see this in Austin already. Houston, Dallas will become more like the rest of America over time, maybe even San Antonio someday, El Paso with more time.
Interesting throughout, recommended. We also talk about art and art collecting…
Economics coauthorships in the aftermath of MeToo
We study changes in coauthorships in economics, after the MeToo movement, using NBER and CEPR working papers between January 2004 and December 2020. We identify three main shifts in collaboration patterns. First, compared to pre-MeToo levels, collaborations across genders in an author’s seniority group increased: we estimate a 12.3% increase of women coauthors per 100 men-authored papers. Second, coauthorship shares of senior with junior economics declined by 3.0%, indicating a shift towards sorting of collaborations by seniority. Third, shares of new coauthorships declined by 5.4%, driven by drops in senior economists’ shares of new junior and new junior women by 18.4% and 48.0%, respectively. The results are robust to different specifications.
That is from a new paper by Noriko Amano-Patiño, Elisa Faraglia, and Chryssi Giannitsarou. Via the excellent Kevin Lewis. And here is a related paper on who receives credit for cross-gender co-authorships.
My excellent Conversation with Theodore Schwartz
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Tyler and Ted discuss how the training for a neurosurgeon could be shortened, the institutional factors preventing AI from helping more in neurosurgery, how to pick a good neurosurgeon, the physical and mental demands of the job, why so few women are currently in the field, whether the brain presents the ultimate bottleneck to radical life extension, why he thinks free will is an illusion, the success of deep brain stimulation as a treatment for neurological conditions, the promise of brain-computer interfaces, what studying epilepsy taught him about human behavior, the biggest bottleneck limiting progress in brain surgery, why he thinks Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, the Ted Schwartz production function, the new company he’s starting, and much more.
And an excerpt:
COWEN: I know what economists are like, so I’d be very worried, no matter what my algorithm was for selecting someone. Say the people who’ve only been doing operations for three years — should there be a governmental warning label on them the way we put one on cigarettes: “dangerous for your health”? If so, how is it they ever learn?
SCHWARTZ: You raise a great point. I’ve thought about this. I talk about this quite a bit. The general public — when they come to see me, for example, I’m at a training hospital, and I practiced most of my career where I was training residents. They’ll come in to see me, and they’ll say, “I want to make sure that you’re doing my operation. I want to make sure that you’re not letting a resident do the operation.” We’ll have that conversation, and I’ll tell them that I’m doing their operation, but that I oversee residents, and I have assistants in the operating room.
But at the same time that they don’t want the resident touching them, in training, we are obliged to produce neurosurgeons who graduate from the residency capable of doing neurosurgery. They want neurosurgeons to graduate fully competent because on day one, you’re out there taking care of people, but yet they don’t want those trainees touching them when they’re training. That’s obviously an impossible task, to not allow a trainee to do anything, and yet the day they graduate, they’re fully competent to practice on their own.
That’s one of the difficulties involved in training someone to do neurosurgery, where we really don’t have good practice facilities where we can have them practice on cadavers — they’re really not the same. Or have models that they can use — they’re really not the same, or simulations just are not quite as good. At this point, we don’t label physicians as early in their training.
I think if you do a little bit of research when you see your surgeon, there’s a CV there. It’ll say, this is when he graduated, or she graduated from medical school. You can do the calculation on your own and say, “Wow, they just graduated from their training two years ago. Maybe I want someone who has five years under their belt or ten years under their belt.” It’s not that hard to find that information.
COWEN: How do you manage all the standing?
And:
COWEN: Putting yourself aside, do you think you’re a happy group of people overall? How would you assess that?
SCHWARTZ: I think we’re as happy as our last operation went, honestly. Yes, if you go to a neurosurgery meeting, people have smiles on their faces, and they’re going out and shaking hands and telling funny stories and enjoying each other’s company. It is a way that we deal with the enormous pressure that we face.
Not all surgeons are happy-go-lucky. Some are very cold and mechanical in their personalities, and that can be an advantage, to be emotionally isolated from what you’re doing so that you can perform at a high level and not think about the significance of what you’re doing, but just think about the task that you’re doing.
On the whole, yes, we’re happy, but the minute you have a complication or a problem, you become very unhappy, and it weighs on you tremendously. It’s something that we deal with and think about all the time. The complications we have, the patients that we’ve unfortunately hurt and not helped — although they’re few and far between, if you’re a busy neurosurgeon doing complex neurosurgery, that will happen one or two times a year, and you carry those patients with you constantly.
Fun and interesting throughout, definitely recommended. And I will again recommend Schwartz’s book Gray Matters: A Biography of Brain Surgery.
Glow in the Dark Flowers!
I love these glow-in-the-dark petunias. Aside from the novelty, they speak to science and progress! The petunias were genetically modified to incorporate genes from a bioluminescent mushroom.
Sentences to ponder
In fact, it was the Obama administration that paused funding for high-risk GoF studies in 2014. The ban was lifted by none other than Donald Trump in 2017. At the time, outlets like Scientific American and Science covered the decision, in articles that quoted scientists talking about what could go wrong. Remind yourself of this the next time you see rightists trumpeting some headline showing the media being wrong about something.
That is from Richard Hanania’s Substack.
Major reforms at the NSF
The National Science Foundation (NSF), already battered by White House directives and staff reductions, is plunging into deeper turmoil. According to sources who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, staff were told today that the agency’s 37 divisions—across all eight NSF directorates—are being abolished and the number of programs within those divisions will be drastically reduced. The current directors and deputy directors will lose their titles and might be reassigned to other positions at the agency or elsewhere in the federal government.
The consolidation appears to be driven in part by President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut the agency’s $9 billion budget by 55% for the 2026 fiscal year that begins on 1 October. NSF’s decision to abolish its divisions could also be part of a larger restructuring of the agency’s grantmaking process that involves adding a new layer of review. NSF watchers fear that a smaller, restructured agency could be more vulnerable to pressure from the White House to fund research that suits its ideological bent.
As soon as this evening, NSF is also expected to send layoff notices to an unspecified number of its 1700-member staff. The remaining staff and programs will be assigned to one of the eight smaller directorates. Staff will receive a memo on Friday “with details to be finalized by the end of the fiscal year,” sources tell Science. The agency is also expected to issue another round of notices tomorrow terminating grants that have already been awarded, sources say. In the past 3 weeks, the agency has pulled the plug on almost 1400 grants worth more than $1 billion.
Here is more information, this story is still developing…
My excellent Conversation with Jack Clark
This was great fun and I learned a lot, here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Jack and Tyler explore which parts of the economy AGI will affect last, where AI will encounter the strongest legal obstacles, the prospect of AI teddy bears, what AI means for the economics of journalism, how competitive the LLM sector will become, why he’s relatively bearish on AI-fueled economic growth, how AI will change American cities, what we’ll do with abundant compute, how the law should handle autonomous AI agents, whether we’re entering the age of manager nerds, AI consciousness, when we’ll be able to speak directly to dolphins, AI and national sovereignty, how the UK and Singapore might position themselves as AI hubs, what Clark hopes to learn next, and much more.
An excerpt:
COWEN: Say 10 years out, what’s your best estimate of the economic growth rate in the United States?
CLARK: The economic growth rate now is on the order of 1 percent to 2 percent.
COWEN: There’s a chance at the moment, we’re entering a recession, but at average, 2.2 percent, so let’s say it’s 2.2.
CLARK: I think my bear case on all of this is 3 percent, and my bull case is something like 5 percent. I think that you probably hear higher numbers from lots of other people.
COWEN: 20 and 30, I hear all the time. To me, it’s absurd.
CLARK: The reason that my numbers are more conservative is, I think that we will enter into a world where there will be an incredibly fast-moving, high-growth part of the economy, but it is a relatively small part of the economy. It may be growing its share over time, but it’s growing from a small base. Then there are large parts of the economy, like healthcare or other things, which are naturally slow-moving, and may be slow in adoption of this.
I think that the things that would make me wrong are if AI systems could meaningfully unlock productive capacity in the physical world at a really surprisingly high compounding growth rate, automating and building factories and things like this.
Even then, I’m skeptical because every time the AI community has tried to cross the chasm from the digital world to the real world, they’ve run into 10,000 problems that they thought were paper cuts but, in sum, add up to you losing all the blood in your body. I think we’ve seen this with self-driving cars, where very, very promising growth rate, and then an incredibly grinding slow pace at getting it to scale.
I just read a paper two days ago about trying to train human-like hands on industrial robots. Using reinforcement learning doesn’t work. The best they had was a 60 percent success rate. If I have my baby, and I give her a robot butler that has a 60 percent accuracy rate at holding things, including the baby, I’m not buying the butler. Or my wife is incredibly unhappy that I bought it and makes me send it back.
As a community, we tend to underestimate that. I may be proved to be an unrealistic pessimist here. I think that’s what many of my colleagues would say, but I think we overestimate the ease with which we get into a physical world.
COWEN: As I said in print, my best estimate is, we get half a percentage point of growth a year. Five percent would be my upper bound. What’s your scenario where there’s no growth improvement? If it’s not yours, say there’s a smart person somewhere in Anthropic — you don’t agree with them, but what would they say?
Interesting throughout, definitely recommended.
Has Clothing Declined in Quality?
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) recently tweeted that they wanted to bring back apparel manufacturing to the United States. Why would anyone want more jobs with long hours and low pay, whether historically in the US or currently in places like Bangladesh? Thanks in part to international trade, the real price of clothing has fallen dramatically (see figure below). Clothing expenditure dropped from 9-10% of household budgets in the 1960s (down from 14% in 1900) to about 3% today.
Apparently, however, not everyone agrees. While some responses to my tweet revealed misunderstandings of basic economics, one interesting counter-claim emerged–the low price of imported clothing has been a false bargain, the argument goes, because the quality of clothing has fallen.
The idea that clothing has fallen in quality is very common (although it’s worth noting that this complaint was also made more than 50 years ago, suggesting a nostalgia bias, like the fact that the kids today are always going to hell). But are there reliable statistics documenting a decline in quality? In some cases, there are! For example, jeans from the 1960s-80s, for example, were often 13–16 oz denim, compared to 9–11 oz today. According to some sources, the average garment life is down modestly. The statistical evidence is not great but the anecdotes are widespread and I shall accept them. Most sources date the decline in quality to the fast fashion trend which took off in the 1990s and that provides a clue to what is really going on.
Fast fashion, led by firms like Zara, is a business model that focuses on rapidly transforming street style and runway trends into mass-produced, low-cost clothing—sometimes from runway to store within weeks. The model is not about timeless style but about synchronized consumption: aligning production with ephemeral cultural signals, i.e. to be fashionable, which is to say to be on trend, au-courant and of the moment.
It doesn’t make sense to criticize fast fashion for lacking durability—by design, it isn’t meant to last. Making it durable would actually be wasteful. The product isn’t just clothing; it’s fashionable clothing. And in that sense, quality has improved: fast fashion is better than ever at delivering what’s current. Critics who lament declining quality miss the point—it’s fun to buy new clothes and if consumers want to buy new clothes it doesn’t make sense to produce long lasting clothes. People do own many more pieces of clothing today than in the past but the flow is the fun.
So my argument is that the decline in “quality” clothing has little to do with the shift to importing but instead is consumer-driven and better understood as an increase in the quality of fashion. Testing my theory isn’t hard. Consider clothing where function, not just fashion, is paramount: performance sportswear and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
There has been a massive and obvious improvement in functional clothing. The latest GoreTex jackets, for example, are more than five times as water resistant (28 000 mm hydrostatic head) compared to the best waxed cotton technology of the past (~5 000 mm) and they are breathable (!) and lighter. Or consider PolarTec winter jackets, originally developed for the military these jackets have the incredible property of releasing heat when you are active but holding it in when you are inactive. (In the past, mountain climbers and workers in extreme environments had to strip on or off layers to prevent over-heating or freezing while exerting effort or resting.) Amazing new super shoes can actually help runners to run faster! Now that is high quality. Personal protective equipment has also increased in quality dramatically. Industrial workers and intense sports enthusiasts can now wear impact resistant gloves which use non-Newtonian polymers that stiffen on impact to reduce hand injuries.
Moreover, it’s not just functional clothing that has increased in quality. For those willing to look, there is in fact plenty of high-quality clothing readily available. From Iron Heart, for example, you can buy jeans made with 21oz selvedge indigo denim produced in Japan. Pair with a high-quality Ralph Lauren shirt, a Mackinaw Wool Cruiser Jacket and a nice pair of Alden boots. Experts like the excellent Derek Guy regularly highlight such high-quality options. Of course, when Derek Guy discusses clothes like this people complain about the price and accuse him of being an elitist snob. Sigh. Tradeoffs are everywhere.
Critics long for a past when goods were cheap, high quality, and Made in America—but that era never really existed. Clothing in the past was more expensive and often low quality. To the extent that some products in the past were of higher quality–heavier fabric jeans, for example–that was often because the producers of the time couldn’t produce it less expensively. Technology and trade have increased variety along many dimensions, including quality. As with fast fashion, lower quality on some dimensions can often produce a superior product. And, of course, it should be obvious but it needs saying: products made abroad can be just as good—or better—than those made domestically. Where something is made tells you little about how well it’s made.
The bottom line is that international trade has brought us more options and if today’s household were to redirect the historical 9 – 10 % share of income to clothing, it could absolutely buy garments that are heavier, better-constructed, and longer-lived than the typical mid-century mass-market clothing.
How are economics publications changing?
This study examines publications in three leading general economics journals from the 1960s through the 2020s, considering levels and trends in the demographics of authors, methodologies of the studies, and patterns of co-authorship. The average age of authors has increased nearly steadily; there has been a sharp increase in the fraction of female authors; the number of authors per paper has risen steadily; and there has been a pronounced shift to articles using newly generated data. All but the first of these trends have been most pronounced in the most recent decade. The study also examines the relationships among these trends.
That is from a new NBER working paper by Daniel Hamermesh.
Markets in everything
Creative powerhouse VML, genomic innovators The Organoid Company, and sustainable biotechnology firm Lab-Grown Leather have joined forces to develop the world’s first T-Rex leather made using the extinct creature’s DNA…
“This project is a remarkable example of how we can harness cutting-edge genome and protein engineering to create entirely new materials. By reconstructing and optimizing ancient protein sequences, we can design T. Rex leather, a biomaterial inspired by prehistoric biology, and clone it into a custom-engineered cell line,” said Thomas Mitchell, CEO of The Organoid Company…
While it was previously believed that dinosaur DNA wouldn’t survive for millions of years, recent discoveries have found collagen preserved in various dinosaur fossils, including an 80-million-year-old T Rex.
Last year, MIT researchers decoded how the dinosaur collagen survived for so long. Interestingly, they discovered a specific atomic mechanism that shields collagen from water’s damaging effects.
In this new work, the T-rex-based leather material creation method differs from plant-based or synthetic alternatives by focusing on growing biological structures in a lab. This bio-fabrication process directly cultivates leather-like tissue from cells.
The process of creating T-Rex leather uses fossilized dinosaur collagen as a template. Using this, the team will generate a complete collagen sequence for the T-Rex to cultivate new skin.
The collagen sequence will be translated into DNA and introduced into Lab-Grown Leather’s cells.
Here is the full story, via Mike Doherty. The actual product might be ready by the end of the year, at what price I do not know.
We need more elitism
Even though the elites themselves are highly imperfect. That is the theme of my latest FP column. Excerpt:
Very often when people complain about “the elites,” they are not looking in a sufficiently elitist direction.
A prime example: It is true during the pandemic that the CDC and other parts of the government gave us the impression that the vaccines would stop or significantly halt transmission of the coronavirus. The vaccines may have limited transmission to some partial degree by decreasing viral load, but mostly this was a misrepresentation, perhaps motivated by a desire to get everyone to take the vaccines. Yet the vaccine scientists—the real elites here—were far more qualified in their research papers and they expressed a more agnostic opinion. The real elites were not far from the truth.
You might worry, as I do, that so many scientists in the United States have affiliations with the Democratic Party. As an independent, this does induce me to take many of their policy prescriptions with a grain of salt. They might be too influenced by NPR and The New York Times, and more likely to favor government action than more decentralized or market-based solutions. Still, that does not give me reason to dismiss their more scientific conclusions. If I am going to differ from those, I need better science on my side, and I need to be able to show it.
A lot of people do not want to admit it, but when it comes to the Covid-19 pandemic the elites, by and large, actually got a lot right. Most importantly, the people who got vaccinated fared much better than the people who did not. We also got a vaccine in record time, against most expectations. Operation Warp Speed was a success. Long Covid did turn out to be a real thing. Low personal mobility levels meant that often “lockdowns” were not the real issue. Most of that economic activity was going away in any case. Most states should have ended the lockdowns sooner, but they mattered less than many critics have suggested. Furthermore, in contrast to what many were predicting, those restrictions on our liberty proved entirely temporary.
Recommended.