Posts
Comments
'If this were true, where are the lawsuits against the vaccine makers?'
Surely they've been shielded from liability so there won't be any.
To me, 'evil' means 'should be destroyed if possible'. Therefore I don't like to hand out the label recklessly, as it leads generally to impotent rage, which is harmful to me.
Is only 1/3 of Long Covid sufferers actually having had covid definitely a thing, too? I think it is (or maybe antibody tests give many false positives?)
That seems a bit overconfident. Immunity is one supposed long-term effect. Death is another long-term effect though obviously infrequent in approved vaccines.
In order to weigh about the possibility of long term effects of the MRNA covax (Pfizer, Moderna), we need some plausible categories of mechanism; my understanding is that a known-harmful spike protein is produced in some quantity (surely dose dependent; why do they dose large people the same as small?) which may cause some clots or other harms acutely, but then days later spike levels are back to zero at which point there's nothing more to worry about except lingering cancer type damage that won't heal fully, and autoimmune (more likely in case of response to covid exposure than broadly own-tissue-attacking which we'd have seen already after 100m doses). I've heard no specific evidence that the spike insult or the MRNA mechanism would cause either but those are the categories of risk as I see it, FWIW.
How much lower is the chance of being 'infected eventually' if you keep current on your annual (or whatever it ends up at) corona vaccination booster?
Convincing. Good question re: Disulfiram. Maybe drugs that make it easier to ride out physical dependency (+ alcohol withdrawal poisoning) are of greater practical use/demand - methadone seems popular [for rehabilitating opiate addicts, not alcohol, obv.].
Thanks.
Questions:
Why? 'EET-A will show temporary benefits as an anti-ageing therapy (70% as above) and will work "better" than* senolytics in that it will actually reverse ageing rather than needing to be taken at higher concentrations over time (40%).'
How would you obtain and how would you dose if you were performing a human study?
(and why 3 separate parts?)
This may have made sense to the author, but to me it's unclear and unmotivated.
Clearly the second dose of pfizer/moderna increases effectiveness.
It also clearly increases the chance you're mildly sick for about a day. Probably skipping the second is fine but presumably people are keeping quiet when they do this so as to not reduce herd compliance.
What of the 6x or worse effectiveness against a few strains gaining currency e.g. the brazilian one? Seems still valuable under this model.
Quantity/frequency matters.
Algorithms should minimize the chance that initial luck (bad or good) leaves a lasting effect on end popularity.
Really great, accessible stuff pumped out regularly will eventually rise.
Please elaborate 'the best "simplified" way of looking at human intelligence is how well your "System 1" performs (approximately) Bayesian inference'
Reverse osmosis (RO) is gold-standard. I prefer the taste to that of our mineral-heavy local rural water. AmazonBasics has a ripoff that's cheaper but I used Brondell Circle which was easy to install (just need to drill or poke a hole in drainpipe, and an opening in counter to place the faucet, which you may already have or could be cut with a circular cutting bit or jigsaw)
It's believed that severe symptoms are a fn of viral load, but perhaps a sensitive test would show some level of asymptomatic infection after a low load exposure?
This is reasonable but doesn't excuse us not running experiments.
For example, suppose there's a varying Health factor (how much sleep, overtraining, stress, nutrition, etc) and that if you're above a threshold you will not succumb to exposure at some proximity no matter the duration. If this were true (I don't think it is, but we need experiments to know), then Bob would be less likely to get sick if his Health has enough daily variation.
Why do you think Google is in the wrong here?
Novavax (non-mRNA) may be more effective on new variants. https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/
I just want to offer: feeling uncertain or insecure about your kid's prospects is normal and healthy. Be curious but also explore the idea that a delayed kid is happy+great too. Also, pretty much everyone learns to speak normally eventually. Irrelevant personal anecdote (my speech-delayed kid is not really an 'einstein') follows:
My 1st was mildly precocious in signing, speaking, singing; I felt uncertain about my 2nd, who was many months slower on his first words yet did have ~80 words by 2 (below avg, though his understanding seemed fine) and now at almost 3 years is normally competent+chatty. It's apparently more common for boys to have this sort of delay. I wondered if some chipped teeth (avoided dentist during covid) might have contributed. I read into him a low desire to verbally communicate (insecurity of some sort? preference for physical grabbing/pointing/showing?) yet he loves to narrate + interact now. He only rarely tries to hum/sing - some people are musical, seems mostly unrelated to speech. He got started trying to speak mostly in the context of peekaboo type 1.4 year old game playing ("oh no! you're stuck" "the ball is stuck!" repeatedly wedging self or toy behind couch). Sounds like a completely different trajectory/mechanism from your son's speech delay. (My 3rd is 4 mo old but far more expressive w/ babble+eye contact than her sibs - perhaps competing for limited attn or fed by more toddler stimulus?).
I'm very confident that a follow-up to this post in 2 years would be "well, totally normal speech now".
Yes, RationalWiki are collectively shallow+glib 'believe Science' snarkists.
What makes you now think Praise Research is fake science?
I'm 100% in unleveraged equity index funds. If I were to want to decrease how long I am I'd just hold some cash, right? If I wanted to go more long with leverage, would it make sense to preferentially do that in IRA accounts or in taxable?
This is nice. But of course sometimes it hurts to try to do something you should in fact do.
Yet Biden underperformed polls everywhere by about 6 percentage points.
(I don't think there's low motive to cheat on the other side or that they're more moral, but rather that a single rural area has less power to credibly delay and report a large vote difference to decide anything, and that getting away with a large collection of small cheats is less likely)
Even Trump's team probably doesn't yet know how/what they're going to prove, but it's historically true that urban places forge the most votes, and so Biden's side had more opportunity to benefit from laxness in this area. Since demonstrating that the fair outcome should have been for Trump is a high bar, we should patiently expose and punish wrongdoers without undue concern for that.
It's hard to say he's wrong. In any case why should you assign general 'trust' values to people?
~zero. But buy a shotgun just in case riots (which are more than possible - they're ongoing) get aggressive.
3. is no cause for concern at all. 2. ('overdue') presumes some knowledge of mechanism, which I don't have. Roughly speaking it's a 1 in 300,000 risk each year and not extinction level. Additionally, we can easily employ radiation poisoning prophylactics if there's some long-lasting decreased shielding (which I highly doubt - there's less shielding at the poles, right, but no big deal - it's not as though the field temporarily disappears completely!)
I've been sucking zinc acetate lozenges daily and haven't got sick, so it's obviously working.
What drugs did you do to become enlightened?
You either have no idea what "get Covid" means or what "case" means. If you define things clearly it will be obvious that the death rate per infection is under 1% and for 0-49 year olds under 0.1%
20% of NYC had antibodies (per random pop sample). We can expect some small regions will make it out with sub 1% but I think there's a 90% chance at least 4% of the US will be antibody positive from exposure (with or without severe symptoms) after a year (and a 90% chance no more than 60% will). We'll apparently know more when the sedars-sinai antibody test is in wide use.
We do know viral loads matter.
I did support lockdown (incl stronger measures than what the US employed) early on hoping for improved treatment. It's barely improved. Nothing great is coming.
No, you're not missing anything. This should be obviously true to anyone who's observing. Hints of vaccine or treatment-magic-bullet just around the corner, anecdotal scary nonfatal effects, false hope of keeping sub-1% US-wide infected, etc have simply been upvoted in media for political reasons (esp. sunk cost fallacy, but it's complicated - no lockdown leader wants to be blamed for even one death caused by their decision to relax even partially). People have taken sides for/against lockdown and are digging in (there's also phony stuff on the open-up side - overexuberance for mostly-false-positive antibody results suggesting widespread infection so lower severity per infection).
I now believe we're hearing "even though the mortality per infection is well under 1% here are the terrible things besides dying that might happen to you" more because maximum scaremongering earns clicks and leads to improved compliance w/ sanitation/isolation measures we want. Personally I think the evidence that this is more or less hard to recover from if it doesn't kill you than any other viral illness just isn't there (though there are many identified differences in mechanism). For example, should we expect people with antibodies who never noticed symptoms to be impaired for 6 months? Not noticably.
Isn't that exactly what we are doing in our lockdown world? We are socially distancing and self-isolating, so mild cases always die out.
I don't follow your "so ..."
People who have avoided contact since Feb are incredibly more likely to be delaying (perhaps forever) their date of infection. Basically none of them have yet had a mild case.
It's an open question whether the strain we who've avoided it so far eventually are exposed to is more or less severe in symptoms (obviously it will tend to be more contagious) than the one people got in earlier waves. I always expected it would be (because fast onset fatal strains are quarantined more effectively and cannot spread) slower-onset, more lingering, but less severe. I don't have much reason to change my mind, even though you've brought an interesting historical claim into view.
Besides hospital workers, hardly anyone is going to hospitals unless they have covid already, and although it's not perfect, hygiene is practiced. I agree that hospital workers are more likely to contract a severe strain; that's why they should arguably should have been variolated by intentional light exposure already.
Apparently the virus had naturally selected in the trenches to become much more deadly. People mildly ill remained in the trenches, and so the virus could not spread. But those becoming gravely ill were taken to military hospitals, were the virus could spread.
Where is the evidence for the increased spreading through military hospitals? It's a nice story, and plausible.
Why wouldn't it have spread at as well in the trenches where you have repeated exposure to the same group of people? Open air/sunlight, perhaps? Or are you emphasizing the travel aspect (coming into contact with more people total than the mild cases)?
For sure people having a hard time breathing already will skimp on optional exit valve filtering, but you can sell it as helping-others to comply, and people will at least brag about how they're doing it.
"The idea is to not get infected in the first place" is not good thinking.
Given the long asymptomatic infectious period, both the "protect myself" and "protect others" effectiveness matter in a proposal for universal public wearing, although of course compliance is more incentivized by "protect myself".
That said, I don't question that these are good overall.
You can be pretty sure that whatever forecast is touted by authorities is one designed to increase support+compliance with whatever measures they decided to take this time. Just like the previous was badly overestimating severity with social distancing (and probably without too), I'm willing to believe this one is optimistic about a gradual reopening of physical commerce in select areas.
[I know you didn't advocate this, just saying:] If we had the option to wait and obtain rigorous proof, we would prefer that. We don't have that option. Concurrent with obtaining more certain information, it should be used (and is being used) off-label at safe doses in combination with azithromycin to ward off secondary infections.
Your 'Zvi' doesn't make sense: if we know it works, everyone should get a low dose ASAP. But we don't know it works. I favor Hanson's approach to discover how well it works, and then reevaluate.
Are you aware that Chinese nationals worldwide are often asked to collect intel or perform ops for CCP? Do you think the disproportionate stories of industrial espionage are just disproportionate reporting? Are you aware that CCP requires its citizen companies to routinely violate users' privacy?
Why does it make you angry that xenophobic tendencies contribute to skepticism of reliance on Chinese software/servers? How is that at all relevant to a rational assessment?
That Iceland's currently 1% infected as of now doesn't say anything about how infected it would be after a few weeks of no-special-controls measures (comparable to folks' behavior in a regular flu season). This is the beginning of this virus's worldwide course. It's dishonest to compare a snapshot now with the accumulated total of a whole flu sason.
If it's very contagious (it is), the damage could easily become 50x current. It's true that as and if we learn outcomes per infection are not as bad as feared, we will relax. While we should be skeptical of hype, we need to act aggressively early on until we know more about how to treat and how important it is to slow or limit the spread.
How many times more contagious (if uncontrolled) and critical/fatal (without hospital overcrowding) is it than a typical flu?
Diamond Princess indicates at *least* 2x on both counts IMO. I think it's a bit shady to say that 2x is ' well within the range of uncertainty ' as if that means something.
I hope it's only 2x worse; I believe 5x on contagion and 3x on severity pre-overcrowding.
When can we be assured a pandemic isn't looming?
Vaccines sometimes kill people. Several serious diseases that killed many more people, we're told, are a much smaller risk now. At some point, you'd think people would want to selfishly avoid vaccinating so much. And that's what we see happening. There's a lot of rationalization going on.