ioannes_shade

• ioannes_shade 27 May 2020 22:17 UTC

  1 point

  on: Re­mem­ber­ing the pass­ing of Kathy Forth.

  Post­ing this here for cross-refer­ence:

  If I Can’t Have Me, No One Can (a)

  [Con­tent warn­ing: a suicide note that deals heav­ily with sex­ual vi­o­lence]

• ioannes_shade 1 May 2020 16:58 UTC

  3 points

  on: Nega­tive Feed­back and Simulacra

  At some point I’d like to in­ter­weave the simu­lacra-lev­els frame­work with the dis­cus­sion of mo­ti­va­tions in this post: Altru­is­tic ac­tion is dispassionate

  They feel re­lated.

• ioannes_shade 18 Apr 2020 0:14 UTC

  1 point

  on: Seem­ingly Pop­u­lar Covid-19 Model is Ob­vi­ous Nonsense

  StatNews piece on the IHME model: https://​​www.stat­news.com/​​2020/​​04/​​17/​​in­fluen­tial-covid-19-model-uses-flawed-meth­ods-shouldnt-guide-poli­cies-crit­ics-say/​​

• ioannes_shade 9 Apr 2020 14:51 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Lukas_Gloor’s comment on: Why I’m Not Vegan

  +1

  The ad­ver­sar­ial col­lab­o­ra­tion talks a bit about this.

• ioannes_shade 9 Apr 2020 14:49 UTC

  6 points

  on: Why I’m Not Vegan

  Pigs: about 100. Con­di­tions for pigs are very bad, though I still think hu­mans mat­ter a lot more.

  
  

  Very sur­prised by your ra­tios here.

  cf. the “Is eat­ing meat a net harm?” ad­ver­sar­ial col­lab­o­ra­tion on Slate Star Codex. Look at the sur­veys they ran as a bench­mark.

• ioannes_shade 5 Apr 2020 20:13 UTC

  4 points

  in reply to: Filipe Marchesini’s comment on: How strong is the ev­i­dence for hy­drox­y­chloro­quine?

  Yes, I pointed out some of the limi­ta­tions in the origi­nal link. Should still be in­cluded in a lit re­view though.

• ioannes_shade 5 Apr 2020 17:54 UTC

  1 point

  on: April Coron­avirus Open Thread

  Seems like a good model for es­ti­mat­ing to­tal in­fec­tions, from my quick look: https://​​ob­serv­ablehq.com/​​@danyx/​​es­ti­mat­ing-sars-cov-2-infections

  I haven’t poked its method­ol­ogy.

• ioannes_shade 5 Apr 2020 15:54 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: Wei_Dai’s comment on: April Coron­avirus Open Thread

  Thanks, hadn’t seen that.

  Also just saw this, which makes a lot of the same points: https://​​west­hunt.word­press.com/​​2020/​​04/​​04/​​ihme-pro­jec­tions/​​

• ioannes_shade 5 Apr 2020 15:18 UTC

  3 points

  on: How strong is the ev­i­dence for hy­drox­y­chloro­quine?

  Gautret et al. 2020 and Chen et al. 2020 are stud­ies of hy­drox­y­chloro­quine effi­cacy.

  I stum­bled onto these dur­ing the course of my in­ter­net read­ing, would be great to see a proper lit re­view.

• ioannes_shade 4 Apr 2020 22:30 UTC

  3 points

  on: April Coron­avirus Open Thread

  IHME pub­lished a dash­board with state-by-state pro­jec­tions of coro­n­avirus peaks: http://​​covid19.health­data.org/​​projections

  The ac­com­pa­ny­ing FAQ is also in­ter­est­ing: http://​​www.health­data.org/​​covid/​​faqs

• ioannes_shade 4 Apr 2020 19:52 UTC

  1 point

  on: April Coron­avirus Open Thread

  Which US fed­eral agen­cies should re­ceive more fund­ing in re­sponse to coro­n­avirus? Which should re­ceive less?

• ioannes_shade 1 Apr 2020 18:50 UTC

  6 points

  on: April Fools: An­nounc­ing LessWrong 3.0 – Now in VR!

  As a con­tinu­a­tion of Karma 2.0 we are work­ing on a fea­ture in which your avatar size can scale with your karma, such that users with the most karma can sig­nal their su­pe­ri­or­ity even bet­ter, and truly tower over their in­tel­lec­tual con­tem­po­raries.

  lol

• ioannes_shade 1 Apr 2020 16:32 UTC

  5 points

  on: April Coron­avirus Open Thread

  Is the Chi­nese coro­n­avirus data fake?

  If so, what’s a good es­ti­mate of the ac­tual num­ber of Chi­nese cases & ac­tual num­ber of Chi­nese deaths?

• ioannes_shade 1 Apr 2020 16:30 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: romeostevensit’s comment on: romeosteven­sit’s Shortform

  I think that’s right.

• ioannes_shade 31 Mar 2020 23:27 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: teradimich’s comment on: My cur­rent frame­work for think­ing about AGI timelines

  Awe­some.

• ioannes_shade 31 Mar 2020 21:15 UTC

  6 points

  in reply to: ioannes_shade’s comment on: LessWrong Coron­avirus Agenda

  I looked into this a bit with a friend who’s an MD, and it turns out that this pa­per isn’t very good.

  Study not ran­dom­ized, groups not bal­anced by dis­ease sever­ity, sev­eral treat­ment-group pa­tients ex­cluded from the data af­ter trial started be­cause they got worse (some went to ICU; one died).

  From p. 10 of the pa­per:

  We en­rol­led 36 out of 42 pa­tients meet­ing the in­clu­sion crite­ria in this study that had at least six days of fol­low-up at the time of the pre­sent anal­y­sis. A to­tal of 26 pa­tients re­ceived hy­drox­y­chloro­quine and 16 were con­trol pa­tients.

  Six hy­drox­y­chloro­quine-treated pa­tients were lost in fol­low-up dur­ing the sur­vey be­cause of early ces­sa­tion of treat­ment. Rea­sons are as fol­lows: three pa­tients were trans­ferred to in­ten­sive care unit, in­clud­ing one trans­ferred on day2 post-in­clu­sion who was PCR-pos­i­tive on day1, one trans­ferred on day3 post-in­clu­sion who was PCR-pos­i­tive on days1-2 and one trans­ferred on day4 post-in­clu­sion who was PCR-pos­i­tive on day1 and day3; one pa­tient died on day3 post in­clu­sion and was PCR-nega­tive on day2; one pa­tient de­cided to leave the hos­pi­tal on day3 post-in­clu­sion and was PCR-nega­tive on days1-2; fi­nally, one pa­tient stopped the treat­ment on day3 post-in­clu­sion be­cause of nau­sea and was PCR-pos­i­tive on days1-2-3.

  The re­sults pre­sented here are there­fore those of 36 pa­tients (20 hy­drox­y­chloro­quine-treated pa­tients and 16 con­trol pa­tients). None of the con­trol pa­tients was lost in fol­low-up.

• ioannes_shade 31 Mar 2020 19:34 UTC

  3 points

  on: LessWrong Coron­avirus Agenda

  Does hy­drox­y­chloro­quine + az­ithromycin effec­tively treat COVID-19?

  See Gautret et al. 2020, a small trial of this (not ran­dom­ized) that found a big effect.

  What links here?

  • ioannes_shade's comment on How strong is the ev­i­dence for hy­drox­y­chloro­quine? by Chris_Leong (5 Apr 2020 15:18 UTC; 3 points)

• ioannes_shade 31 Mar 2020 14:48 UTC

  8 points

  in reply to: romeostevensit’s comment on: romeosteven­sit’s Shortform

  Economists mostly dis­agree with pre­sent mar­ket sen­ti­ment, which could be the ba­sis for a trade: http://​​www.igm­chicago.org/​​sur­veys/​​policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/​​

• ioannes_shade 30 Mar 2020 0:00 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: romeosteven­sit’s Shortform

  … plus ris­ing nom­i­nal prices means seek­ing re­turns is the main mo­ti­va­tion, not avoid­ing risk.

  
  

  Why do you think nom­i­nal prices will keep ris­ing?

• ioannes_shade 29 Mar 2020 20:00 UTC

  3 points

  in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: romeosteven­sit’s Shortform

  Isn’t it also plau­si­ble that the im­pact of the virus is defla­tion­ary? (In­creased de­mand for USD as a store of value ex­ceeds the im­pact of the Fed print­ing money, etc)