Covid 4/22: Crisis in India 2021-04-22T13:40:01.676Z
Covid 4/15: Are We Seriously Doing This Again 2021-04-15T13:00:01.288Z
Covid 4/9: Another Vaccine Passport Objection 2021-04-09T14:50:01.628Z
Covid 4/1: Vaccine Passports 2021-04-01T12:10:01.814Z
Covid 3/25: Own Goals 2021-03-25T13:50:00.989Z
Covid 3/18: An Expected Quantity of Blood Clots 2021-03-18T13:50:00.599Z
Return to New York City 2021-03-15T15:20:00.667Z
Covid 3/12: New CDC Guidelines Available 2021-03-12T17:20:01.392Z
Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home 2021-03-04T13:20:01.046Z
Covid 2/25: Holding Pattern 2021-02-25T14:30:01.836Z
Judging Our April 2020 Covid-19 Predictions 2021-02-23T17:20:01.309Z
Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work 2021-02-18T12:30:00.789Z
Covid: CDC Issues New Guidance on Opening Schools 2021-02-17T20:00:01.602Z
Covid 2/11: As Expected 2021-02-11T18:30:01.438Z
Still Not in Charge 2021-02-09T16:00:01.474Z
Why I Am Not in Charge 2021-02-07T18:20:01.333Z
Covid 2/4: Safe and Effective Vaccines Aplenty 2021-02-04T14:50:01.552Z
Covid 1/28: Muddling Through 2021-01-28T16:50:06.380Z
Covid: Bill Gates and Vaccine Production 2021-01-28T15:00:08.708Z
Everything Okay 2021-01-23T14:50:09.375Z
Covid 1/21: Turning the Corner 2021-01-21T16:40:00.941Z
Covid: The Question of Immunity From Infection 2021-01-20T15:50:01.101Z
Covid 1/14: To Launch a Thousand Shipments 2021-01-14T17:30:01.468Z
Covid 1/7: The Fire of a Thousand Suns 2021-01-07T17:00:01.843Z
Fourth Wave Covid Toy Modeling 2021-01-06T18:30:01.715Z
Covid 12/31: Meet the New Year 2020-12-31T17:20:01.393Z
What evidence will tell us about the new strain? How are you updating? 2020-12-25T21:37:25.264Z
Covid 12/24: We’re F***ed, It’s Over 2020-12-24T15:10:02.975Z
On Robin Hanson’s “Social Proof, but of What?” 2020-12-20T22:20:02.515Z
Covid 12/17: The First Dose 2020-12-17T14:20:01.106Z
Motive Ambiguity 2020-12-15T18:10:01.372Z
Covid 12/10: Vaccine Approval Day in America 2020-12-10T14:20:02.012Z
Covid 12/3: Land of Confusion 2020-12-03T14:20:01.900Z
Covid 11/26: Thanksgiving 2020-11-26T14:50:01.719Z
Covid 11/19: Don’t Do Stupid Things 2020-11-19T16:00:00.895Z
2020 Election: Prediction Markets versus Polling/Modeling Assessment and Postmortem 2020-11-18T23:00:01.166Z
Covid 11/12: The Winds of Winter 2020-11-12T14:30:01.387Z
Covid 11/5: Don’t Mention the War 2020-11-05T14:20:03.374Z
What Belongs in my Glossary? 2020-11-02T19:52:58.009Z
Covid Covid Covid Covid Covid 10/29: All We Ever Talk About 2020-10-29T15:10:00.940Z
Spoiler-Free Review and then Semi-Walkthrough: Star Traders: Frontiers 2020-10-27T18:50:01.179Z
Covid 10/22: Europe in Crisis 2020-10-22T15:40:01.080Z
The Uncertainty of Death and Taxes 2020-10-21T18:10:01.467Z
PredictIt: Presidential Market is Increasingly Wrong 2020-10-18T22:40:00.968Z
Covid 10/15: Playtime is Over 2020-10-15T14:30:01.742Z
Covid 10/8: October Surprise 2020-10-08T13:20:01.665Z
Covid 10/1: The Long Haul 2020-10-01T18:00:00.848Z
Covid 9/24: Until Morale Improves 2020-09-24T15:40:02.594Z
Spoiler-Free Review: The Stanley Parable 2020-09-24T14:40:01.655Z
Covid 9/17: It’s Worse 2020-09-17T15:10:01.649Z


Comment by Zvi on Covid 4/9: Another Vaccine Passport Objection · 2021-04-13T14:55:52.977Z · LW · GW

Covid 4/15: Are We Seriously Doing This Again is in my drafts folder. Don't worry.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 4/1: Vaccine Passports · 2021-04-03T14:37:25.077Z · LW · GW

I would encourage you to make this a top-level post, I think there's a lot of very useful content here and I'd like to be able to comment / refer back to it. I'm especially interested in exploring why these particular areas have so much fraud relative to other areas slash whether this is true - one question is whether these are areas where we call people who lie or misrepresent out as committing fraud, whereas in other places maybe we don't as much do so. 

The solutions on the other hand don't seem viable to me. E.g. having a system where it will tell you how many out of X or more people are vaccinated, but won't tell you if 1 particular person is vaccinated, sounds like something you do in math team practice or when nerd sniping at a party to figure out how to figure out exactly who is vaccinated, and/or a way to start a lot of fights and have a lot of really bad free rider problems and game theory experiments that mostly don't end so well. Fascinating stuff, though. I'm curious how you think this functions in practice if there's a bar on directly checking individuals, under your proposals. 

Incentives are great and would certainly help with the 'fuzzy math' of having groups contain more vaccinated people, slash getting more people vaccinated, but I don't think there's any political/social ability to notice that going from 30% to 70% vaccinated in groups is 'good enough' in some sense and we should be OK with it, I think it needs to be effectively 100% or things won't actually happen. And yes, you can say 'but fraud!' but in some sense that serves the function of letting everyone pretend it's 100% slash not feel responsible for the fact that it's not 100% or for the people still vulnerable. 

Comment by Zvi on Covid 4/1: Vaccine Passports · 2021-04-02T10:16:43.425Z · LW · GW

Very cool! This is an interesting example because it shows the system protecting the information in at least one case, but also shows that yes the government damn well tried to get the information, despite it being an information source that was deeply important to protect - if census info leaked and it got out our ability to do a census would be crippled.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 4/1: Vaccine Passports · 2021-04-02T10:14:12.662Z · LW · GW

I think this assumes that the system needs to be more robust than the current system, by a lot, plus also gain privacy. What I'm saying is that (1) yes we could do both if we cared enough, in theory, because we have proof by example but also (2) we don't need that level of robustness. We need something harder to fake than a Fake ID, where the QR code doesn't reveal who you are, so you can't be tracked beyond the existing ability to track cell phones. 

There's a trade-off of security vs. privacy for sure, but right now the existing systems are lousy at best on both.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/25: Own Goals · 2021-03-28T12:14:29.987Z · LW · GW

You can argue that risk is so low that bothering with vaccination for young people isn't worth it on selfish grounds and it is somehow more ethical then to not recommend it. I would strongly disagree due to long term risks of Covid, which are much higher than any risks of vaccination.

But also, blood clots are a disease of aging. Young people are at almost no risk of those. So even if the danger were real, which it isn't and even if there it was stupidly tiny, it would be orders of magnitude lower here.

So any argument to not recommend would have applied before anyway.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/25: Own Goals · 2021-03-26T22:52:36.292Z · LW · GW

Cruz was speaking to a TV audience and was essentially right.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/25: Own Goals · 2021-03-25T23:26:04.186Z · LW · GW

Ah, so it's effectively an Aella poll. She's got quite the Twitter poll business going. Her followers are definitely not as rationalist, although a lot more rationalist than average. Interesting.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/18: An Expected Quantity of Blood Clots · 2021-03-19T11:22:01.558Z · LW · GW

I do not think everyone understands this, and I think if they did (in general understand such things) the world would look very different. Certainly those messaging do not think people understand it.

Walid Gellad is a relatively prominent Very Serious Person epidemiologist, but not one of the most known/influential, so makes sense you don't know, but he's one of the chorus of people doing the thing in quesiton.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/18: An Expected Quantity of Blood Clots · 2021-03-19T11:20:08.424Z · LW · GW

The EMA report saying that there may be an association with very rare blood clots (which would still imply far more blood clots prevented than caused because Covid causes blood clots + math) came out after I hit the publish button. I agree that they then changed their tune from the pure explicit 'no evidence' line to a new line of Very Serious Person language designed to make it easier for everyone to resume. 

When I say p-hacking, I mean that the search function was identical to what happens when people p-hack, with identical results - they're looking at all conditions and subconditions, in all regions and subregions, with any possible lag ranges, in order to find something that happened above rate. And for the same reason - people are highly motivated to find a positive result somewhere. I don't think anyone in a meeting said the word "p-hack", but no one has denied that the search took place in this fashion, either, nor did they make any attempt to account for it, or notice any issues after they identified what they suspected was the issue. And there's still no mechanism.

I didn't intend to explicitly say that the authorities are failing to use an adjusted background rate, but my prior is that they're not doing so, because no one has mentioned doing the adjustment and in general no one silently does such adjustments when they make things seem more safe, because again everyone is on the 'make the vaccines look unsafe' team.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/12: New CDC Guidelines Available · 2021-03-12T22:55:11.160Z · LW · GW

1400 deaths from about 70 million shots after lag, so even if that was 100% the vaccine, that would be a death rate of 1 in 50k. Seems well worth taking. But also if life expectancy vis about 80 years, that's about 30k days, so if they report deaths that day, and vaccinate a lot of elderly, isn't 1400 deaths on 70mm shots below baseline?

If you die after a flu shot no one thinks the flu shot kills you. If you happen to die after getting an mRNA shot they report it.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/12: New CDC Guidelines Available · 2021-03-12T18:45:00.914Z · LW · GW

I'll check it out in more detail when I have time. Very plausible you're right.

Got another report it's misleading, so edited to simply link to source for now. Don't have bandwidth/energy to investigate further at the moment.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home · 2021-03-12T18:24:08.699Z · LW · GW

Just saw this now but if you link me to the info I'll put in the queue for next week.

Comment by Zvi on Even Inflationary Currencies Should Have Fixed Total Supply · 2021-03-10T12:35:37.911Z · LW · GW

The most important reason for an inflationary currency is to defeat sticky prices and money illusion. Destroying the value of savings over time is not the goal.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home · 2021-03-06T12:01:07.624Z · LW · GW

I think it's not clear which way it will go, depends on a bunch of unknown variables and where they land. The toy model can be tinkered with. But if it's actually more deadly too then yes deaths almost have to rise before falling.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home · 2021-03-06T11:59:22.509Z · LW · GW

No, this is on the basis of not trusting any claims from chinese scientists or studies because track record. So my heuristic is to watch what they do. If you can confirm that the top party officials got it, go for it. Otherwise, avoid.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home · 2021-03-06T11:57:40.434Z · LW · GW

I'm saying you should consider funding more basic research like mRNA vaccines and less bednets. Or setting up medical cruise ships for challenge trials in international waters. Or focusing on epistemics or even policy.

Also, if the pandemic wasn't obviously net bad that raises a lot of questions...

Comment by Zvi on Covid 3/4: Declare Victory and Leave Home · 2021-03-05T11:25:34.386Z · LW · GW

It is off because if buying 100x what we need speeds up our vaccinations by one week we still got a fantastic deal, so you buy way way way too much of everything then donate or sell the rest to vaccinate the world be a hero and shut off or slow mutations and save lives.

We should have almost literally spared no expense.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/25: Holding Pattern · 2021-03-03T11:28:46.380Z · LW · GW

I can test that hypothesis a bit more robustly but I think this requires the delays be longer than they previously were.

Comment by Zvi on Grading myself on SSC's 2020 predictions · 2021-03-03T11:27:04.097Z · LW · GW

Congratulations for fully participating and posting, even if you kept your initial predictions private. What I'd most encourage now is what my post did: explaining your reasoning, especially where you posted different numbers than myself/Scott, and thinking about how good your logic was in each case and what you think your best prediction was given your knowledge at the time. 

also question 18 is missing here?

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/25: Holding Pattern · 2021-02-27T01:34:56.543Z · LW · GW

Did it myself, if I want a reimport I will say so explicitly.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/25: Holding Pattern · 2021-02-26T14:10:54.423Z · LW · GW

Updated post to include a prediction for next week, which I forgot to do. Prediction was made at 9:10am eastern on Friday (so it involves seeing Thursday's numbers).

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/25: Holding Pattern · 2021-02-26T00:01:18.547Z · LW · GW

Nonzero helpful almost certainly, also almost certainly much less effective than glasses.

Comment by Zvi on Judging Our April 2020 Covid-19 Predictions · 2021-02-25T01:03:45.465Z · LW · GW
  1. Russia's higher death toll might or might not be mostly Covid, but I figured its population wasn't high enough. Even if all of Russia gets it, they'd need a pretty high fatality rate to catch us given what was likely happening here. Brazil similarly I figured wouldn't document all that well and had a smaller pop. 

2. I still think that there's enough different ways this can fail that 30% is reasonable, and I dunno where the 29% comes from here? Presumably it would be higher than the 30% baseline for p(17|16), what am I missing? (And the way it resolves to false is if we say it's a third wave that happened rather than a second, not that the numbers don't match, and I agree that this is wrong and it resolves to true). 

Comment by Zvi on Judging Our April 2020 Covid-19 Predictions · 2021-02-23T22:17:37.007Z · LW · GW
  1. Plausible that it was somewhat biased, and I would be happy to have others run the same poll with a different group to verify the result, but I do think it establishes that the result is at least ambiguous. 
  2. That's quite the nitpick. I like it. Technically, yes it did say 'second' and as I noted, parlays are really hard to win, but I didn't interpret the word second there as doing enough work, slash there's dispute over whether the middle wave counts as a wave. I think it's better to take my licks here.
Comment by Zvi on The Prototypical Negotiation Game · 2021-02-23T20:38:47.319Z · LW · GW

The Shilling Point in NYC is, as I have always understood it, indeed the clock (aka the information booth) at Grand Central. It's a much, much better choice than the ESB, and also what I expect others to expect here. Epistemic Status is "This Is Known" and this extends to the degree that I will literally say "Meet at the Schilling Point" when I want to indicate that's where we are meeting, which is not that uncommon as it often makes a lot of sense, and the majority of the time no one asks where I meant by that.

(Yes, Penn Station's train times display and Times Square itself are in theory possible but can confirm that they're both objectively terrible, and worse at the job we're proposing.)

Agreed that in theory ESB is on the board but I would be pretty shocked if someone actually went there.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work · 2021-02-19T12:08:51.298Z · LW · GW

I had. Somehow I read it as someone who Vitalik motivated to do this, rather than Vitalik himself, presumably Vitalik doesn't care about 50k but it makes sense he'd care in theory anyway.

My takeaway was that there's a lot of things to be nervous about when betting even on an event that already happened, and that this was a pure supply-and-demand issue where people who knew the election outcome still had to overcome several risks and make it all worth doing, and you wouldn't do that in these ways for less than ~10-15% return minimum, and the other side had people who believed false things and were thus price insensitive.

If anything the failure to see more divergence in markets due to these issues is the thing that needs explaining. 

If I'd had access to FTX I would have considered doing some of this trade, perhaps quite a lot in dollar terms if liquidity was there, but no way I'm going to get involved in several layers of smart contracts in order to collect this little of a payoff. I don't trust it. 

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work · 2021-02-19T12:03:00.881Z · LW · GW

That's not how I interpret it, because to me if Vitamin D works pre-hospitalization it could work on either mechanism - preventing infection or reducing severity. So that's another way it could be 'too late,' if it acts on an earlier stage. Are you thinking Scott is saying more like 45% to work if taken early because it's 25% to prevent infection and also 25% to reduce severity?

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work · 2021-02-19T12:01:38.836Z · LW · GW

I remember reading it as the Gates Foundation doing a lot more than that, but it would fit with my look into Gates before if they only gave 4mm, at which point they don't get much credit here given their stated intentions. 

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work · 2021-02-19T11:59:55.952Z · LW · GW

I don't. Now that we have more visibility, people who know more, please say more.

This would potentially explain the disagreement - if taking lots of D requires K2 but no one's testing with K2 then all the huge correlations would be there but the interventions wouldn't work. 

Comment by Zvi on Why I Am Not in Charge · 2021-02-19T11:58:07.607Z · LW · GW

Corrected the wording to ensure it is definitely accurate. Speed premium among a lot of very strong claims that definitely happened and all that, but yeah, more careful would have been better.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work · 2021-02-19T01:34:06.864Z · LW · GW

The reason I use my own norms is mainly that I need to have unique rules about what politics is in/out of bounds, and in practice I've yet to strike down a post that isn't either obvious spam or way too political. Recent events likely moved me further towards free speech absolutism. 

As for rapid testing, there's a lot of argument over how accurate they are. At least some of their 'inaccuracy' is actually by design slash useful, coming back negative on the less infectious and thus potentially making the test more useful. There's clearly arguments about the rate of meaningful false negatives, with advocates claiming the tests basically work when it counts and skeptics disagreeing with that. I'm convinced (1) that the bigger skeptics are wrong in practice (2) that the tests are highly useful at a population level to contain spread and (3) they're not as reliable as you'd like them to be if you want to do bubble-style things the way you'd like.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/18: Vaccines Still Work · 2021-02-18T14:47:10.992Z · LW · GW

Depends if you think the previous R0 calculations were based on getting the timing right, and how you think about what's acting on what. If this makes us update towards a much higher R0, then yes we are in more trouble rather than less trouble and it could end up here faster on net, whereas if we hold R0 as known then this slows things down.

Comment by Zvi on Covid: CDC Issues New Guidance on Opening Schools · 2021-02-18T11:35:27.776Z · LW · GW

Vaccine supply will be ready for them the moment the studies are done, so this year seems realistic for getting children vaccinated. Chances seem very high the vaccines work on children, with the caveat that they aren't as needed, of course. 

It's months away but I see no reason we couldn't make a September deadline if that was something teachers needed in order to come back. 

Comment by Zvi on Covid: CDC Issues New Guidance on Opening Schools · 2021-02-18T00:36:03.140Z · LW · GW

Wow that's... really, really weird, cause I remember reading it the other way. I took out the related paragraphs, and will let the graphs speak for themselves.

Comment by Zvi on Your Cheerful Price · 2021-02-17T16:54:38.818Z · LW · GW

Strongly disagree with this. The honest cheerful price is sometimes $0, and if that's true you should say $0, and presumably then do the thing given you were asked for your price. 

It's bad short term profit maximization but if you were purely doing short term profit maximization you never would have been inclined to bake the cake for free in the first place. 

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-12T18:40:00.601Z · LW · GW

I actually think it's worth tracking: ConsensusBot should be a user, it should always update continuously to the public consensus prediction in its absence, and it shouldn't be counted as a prediction, so we can see what it looks like and how it scores. 

And there should be a contest to see if anyone can use a rule that looks only at predictions, and does better than ConsensusBot (e.g. by deciding whose predictions to care about more vs. less, or accounting for systematic bias, etc). 

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-12T12:23:59.225Z · LW · GW

The dangers of quick writing and internet sarcasm are real, but I think that me and Dr. Ivers are in agreement here and the statement was meant to reflect that.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-12T12:18:32.872Z · LW · GW

Yes, that's complexity; see the SSC post that I linked to. You're right that I missed a letter.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-12T12:16:13.120Z · LW · GW

It does look like you are correct. My math from that still had it in the low-mid 40s rather than 55%, but that depends on details. If it's 55%, as I've noted before, that makes it too fast for us to stop in time unless things change fast. 

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-12T12:12:21.726Z · LW · GW

If points could be converted to money enough to motivate real predictions, I would expect a flood of people who do nothing but information cascade to bank points, and it's not obvious what to do about that. As it is, it felt (to me) like there was a tension between 'score points' and 'make good predictions or at least don't make noise predictions' and that felt like a dealbreaker. 

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-12T12:10:51.306Z · LW · GW

The wording here makes me worry we're Goodharting on quantity of predictions. And the best way to predict the community prediction is to (of course) wait for others to predict first, then match them...

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-12T12:08:51.080Z · LW · GW

This seems to me to be very non-obvious. Do we want more low-quality low-effort predictions, or less high-quality high-effort predictions? Do we want people to go for the exact correct probability as they see it, or give a shove in the direction they feel strongly about? Do we want people to go around making the actual community prediciton to bank free points? Who will free points motivate versus demotivate? What about the question of who to trust, and whether others would update their models based on the predictions of those who are doing well? Etc.

If I have time a post on the subject would be interesting. Curious if there are writings detailing how it works and the reasoning behind it, or if you'd like to talk about it in a video call or LW meetup, or both. 

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-11T22:11:46.546Z · LW · GW

I swear I checked this multiple times before and saw people explicitly say it was 30 that was the second threshold and that 35 was severe obesity, but now I look and it seems you're right. So still outrageous, but not quite as completely patently absurd.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-11T22:01:24.477Z · LW · GW

I've covered this extensively in previous weeks. If they are claiming that they could not have spent more money to accelerate production, then (1) that means they spent too much money almost by definition and (2) I do not believe them.

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/11: As Expected · 2021-02-11T21:55:28.102Z · LW · GW

Ah, yes, I'll edit. So easy to assume the worst.

Comment by Zvi on Still Not in Charge · 2021-02-11T18:44:58.069Z · LW · GW

Freeform answer:

My first instinct is to say this is a wrong question, in the sense that it doesn't arise but rather pre-exists, and either survives or is suppressed. There's a small group that learns explicitly about utility functions and starts doing more maximization, but mostly self-interest starts out as something people care about? And then they learn to stop, through a combination of implicit instruction and observation, gradual conditioning and so on, and/or that those that don't stop get selected out? 

Where in some places these suppression and replacement effects are very large, and in other places where people have to sit around doing real things the effects are small or even non-existent and then people can act in their own interests or in the interests of those around them or towards whatever goal they care about. 

There's still some of it there in almost all cases, even if it's suppressed, and when someone has sufficiently large self-interests (or other things they value, doesn't have to be selfish) at stake, that creates an opportunity to shock the person into reality and to caring about outcomes increasingly directly and explicitly. But it's not reliable. Some (not many, but some) people are so far gone they really do give up everything that matters or literally die before that happens even without an intentional boil-the-frog strategy designed to push them to do that, and if you use such a strategy you can do that to a lot more people.

So essentially, self-interest (in the sense of caring about any outcomes at all relative to any other outcomes at all) is the baseline scenario, which gets increasingly suppressed under some conditions including mazes, in the extreme with severe selection effects against anyone not actively acting against such interests as a way of passing the continuous no-utility-function tests others implicitly are imposing. Then they muddle along this way until sufficiently high and sufficiently clear and visible stakes shock some of them into utility-function mode at least temporarily, and if not enough of them do that enough then reality causes the whole thing to come crashing down and get defeated by outsiders and the cycle starts again. 

Comment by Zvi on Still Not in Charge · 2021-02-10T13:55:41.183Z · LW · GW

Interest in things internet has a half-life between 0.5 and 2 days, and I get an order of magnitude or more additional attention after an interest spike like this one. 

(Also Rob's answer that the underlying problem has a giant speed premium of its own, which is why the weekly posts and such.)

Comment by Zvi on Why I Am Not in Charge · 2021-02-09T00:18:51.914Z · LW · GW

Attempted to edit manually, but it won't let you switch to the doc editor, which makes it a mess to do this, and reimporting might make sense. Changes are near the top; I'd confused WebMD with UpToDate, and made it sound like I thought WebMD was useful or (even worse) that my wife found it useful, which is completely false. WebMD is useless, whereas UpToDate is great (but still has basically the same problems Scott describes with WebMD).

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/4: Safe and Effective Vaccines Aplenty · 2021-02-05T12:33:16.817Z · LW · GW

As far as I can tell, no data either way, but also not reports of people dying the second time around. I would expect substantial protective effects on severity (which also might mean we are underestimating how often such folks are technically re-'infected' in a mostly harmless way). 

Comment by Zvi on Covid 2/4: Safe and Effective Vaccines Aplenty · 2021-02-05T12:32:04.728Z · LW · GW

That piece seems like pure FUD and "no evidence" to me. I don't think this is "experts disagree" in a meaningful way.