It’s funny… a lot of it sounds exactly like work.
I don’t know about a New Zealand path, but I do think that there would have been a much more significant response.
Consider that to a significant degree, populations seem to be fairly good at maintaining COVID-19 spread to a constant rate (ie. an R_t of around 1). This seems to be based on feedback mechanisms that operate through hearing news of the virus, through official channels, mainstream media, and social media. For instance, if you hear that the government is telling you not to go out and that the hospitals are full and that many people are dying, you will likely comply, but once those are working, you will become less cautious, causing the cycle to repeat.
I would suspect based on this that a more dangerous disease (either higher IFR or higher infectivity) would result in more cautious behavior, likely causing a flatter behavior rather than the peaks that we have had with COVID-19, but the response would be substantially the same. That said, if it was especially more dangerous (black death or smallpox levels), then a substantially different response might be possible.
There are a number of whistled languages, most notably Silbo. They’re usually used for communicating across large empty spaces (think gaps between mountains).
Note that much of the research involving Pirahã is dubious.
Looking at https://usafacts.org/data/topics/economy/economic-indicators/gdp/gross-domestic-product/?adjustment=Inflation it looks like the USA’s GDP in 1944 was $3.1T in 2019 dollars, so the Manhattan project (even spread over four years) couldn’t be anywhere near $3.3T.
I have a friend who has been taking HCQ for a chronic illness since long before the pandemic, as it’s been historically used for. They have to go in for regular retinal checks to ensure that they aren’t going blind, and they are other significant concerns. They’re on it because those risks aren’t as bad as the effects of their chronic illness that HCQ relieves. But those risks are still bad. And if HCQ doesn’t help, then they definitely don’t want to give it out to everyone.
I think the answer to whether numbers are in the map or territory is simply mu. A map describes the territory and the territory is made out of atoms. Numbers are clearly not made out of atoms, so they can’t exist in the territory. But they don’t fit into the map either because the map must change when the territory changes, but numbers don’t change no matter how many atoms you move around or how much you change how atoms interact with each other. Suppose an all-powerful being changed the world so that any time two objects got near each other, a third appears: 1 + 1 = 3. The entire math canon could still work, and you could still spend lifetimes describing it, but it wouldn’t be helpful for describing how the world works. It would be neither in the map, nor in the territory, but it would still be real. Mu.
There is no significant risk of lasting negative health consequences after infection
That’s simply false. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence of it.
You’re… citing someone with a PhD in nutritional science primarily interpreting a study with n=76, and trying to deduce from that a 96% decrease in fatality risk. That’s not how those statistics work. You simply can’t get that level of information from the studies cited.
Other than wearing masks (which hardly is a burden), I don’t really see people sacrificing too much to help prevent others outside their family and friends from getting COVID. There are obviously exceptions to this, such as the entire medical community, but I don’t think that there was truly a huge personal sacrifice to prevent others from getting COVID versus preventing others from dying of smoking. What sacrifice there was can, I think, be explained up by the same reason that charities like the Against Malaria Foundation that operate primarily in Africa can be much more effective than charities that operate in the US—out of sight, out of mind.
Sweden precisely shows why your question is misguided. They had significantly fewer governmental restrictions, but their economy did the same or worse over the last year than the other Scandinavian countries. My interpretation is that average people care a lot about their personal pandemic risk and are willing to do all these measures regardless of the laws, while the laws help stop the super-spreader marginal cases.
Because of this, the governmental restrictions have approximately zero economic cost while have a significant health benefit. The governmental expenditures have not truly been COVID-relief. Rather, they have been depression-relief, where the depression is caused by people’s desire to avoid COVID.
For a specific example, everyone at my company is allowed to work at the office, both by the government and by the company. Despite that, not a single person does. Similarly, my area currently allows people to eat inside restaurants, but almost no one does.
This was a very good explanation of why to use a gears level explanation instead of an atom level. But it lacks the other direction—how do you determine if something is a gear instead of a gearbox? Regarding the image at the top of the post, how do you decide whether to describe using the blue boxes or using the gears?
For a more recent example than trans-Atlantic ocean liners, when The Beatles arrived in the US by plane in 1964 they were greeted by a crowd of 3000 fans. That doesn’t seem likely to happen today (and not just because of airport security).
A similar question regarding rising costs in the US is around the cost of public transportation, especially building subway tunnels, where costs can vary by a factor of ten, with the US’s cost being about the highest globally. The blog Pedestrian Observations has talked a lot about it, for instance in this blog post. Per it, the ultimate cause is that the US is unwilling to learn from other countries because it still perceives itself as being top in the world at public transit while much of Europe and East Asia is surpassing it.
When I’ve previously considered human extinction caused by nuclear wars, I’ve known that the immediate blasts wouldn’t kill everyone. However, what are the effects of a lower overall population with fewer habitable areas and less access to resources? That’s doubly true since the areas that will have more people survive will almost definitionally be developing countries that are now suddenly cutoff from imports. I believe that humans as a species would likely survive, but I also suspect that it would be the end of modern civilization. Adding to that, I’ve seen hypotheses before that the remaining resources left underground but easily accessibly by non-modern technology would not be enough to “reboot” civilization, especially fossil fuels. Overall, despite the very likely non-extinction of the human species, it would much more likely be an extinction of the human race as a space-faring species.
Could you expand on “you don’t need to hugely stretch general relativity for closed timelike curves to become possible”? After all, the only thing keeping everyone from flying off of the planet is a minus sign in different equations relating to gravity, but we don’t worry about that as a risk. Are the changes to general relativity similar to that, or more like “relativity allows it but it has some huge barrier that we can’t currently surpass”?
I can easily imagine a world where the railways switched from local solar time to universal time, without developing timezones. Afterall, the problem with local solar time is that it changes between cities, and that’s true with timezones as well, it’s just less frequent (and with even hour or half-hour multiples). If anything, universal time would be easier. Universal time doesn’t work for non-railroads very well though, so I can totally imagine local solar time sticking around without having to seriously change anything about the world.
I was merely noting that 538, the makers of the prediction model that the post is discussing, believes in the voter suppression. If you think they’re wrong about the voter suppression, then you probably also shouldn’t believe in their prediction model. On the other hand, if you think they’re right about the prediction model, then why are you doubting their voter suppression research?
Of course, it’s perfectly consistent to think that they are wrong about both the model and the voter suppression, but the post was assuming that you believed in the prediction model.
Notably, the 538 prediction doesn’t include a number of outside factors, primarily around mail-in ballots and voter suppression. 538 has already talked about the problems with mail-in ballots being rejected, and there are also concerns about not having all of the ballots counted before the cut-off point where they have to finish counting. Republicans have also made it harder for Democrat-leaning bases to vote. These are factors that will hurt Biden more than Trump. All those links are to 538, and there are other articles on the site about those same issues. If you believe in 538′s model, you should probably also believe in their articles that indicate that these outside factors will be important. If you don’t believe in the articles, then why do you believe in their model?
Either way, this is not a clear case where the market is wrong.
One response is that China currently has a lot more than it’s historical boundaries, to the extent that those can even be properly defined, given that it hasn’t truly been a continuous country. See https://medium.com/@millwarj/we-need-a-new-approach-to-teaching-modern-chinese-history-we-have-lazily-repeated-false-d24983bd7ef2 for a recent article I read that discusses it.
I suspect that the confederate flags and guns were a poorly specified way to say “Republican.” Obviously there are some Republicans who are part of the community, and even more conservatives in general, but a significant portion of the community is gay and trans, two groups that are often discriminated against in more conservative areas of the USA. That portion of the group seems to be even more prevalent in the Bay Area community. The concern, to me at least, is not difference of thought, but rather being discriminated against.