There are now enough cases in Europe to get a faint idea of local transmission dynamics. Of the 11 known cases so far in Germany, only one has transmitted the virus. Israel has 4 cases, with one local transmission attributable to them. Portugal has 13 cases, with 12 of those being local transmission all attributable to the same index case.
If we can collect similar information from other countries, we could get reasonable estimates of R_eff.
Source for Germany: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1BA2GoeVMhC_dCcnl5qtR-fxpCwVH6xu8T3LxHUss1Gw/htmlview
This looks exciting! I wonder about the proposed training setup: If one model produces the thoughts, and another one takes those as input to the prompts, are we actually learning anything about the internal state of either model? What is the advantage (beyond scalability) of this training setup vs just using the second model to produce continuations conditional on thoughts?
For an unreasonable narrow interpretation that only counts those for whom the medicine was already sitting in a warehouse waiting for approval, and treat that shortage as a ‘whoops, making things is hard and takes time’ rather than a directly caused effect, the FDA is going to directly murder about 20,000 people in the United States.
I disagree with this, in that my lowest count on FDA related deaths is approximately zero, or less than 100, for the exact reason that Gurkenglas mentioned below. The post already recognizes that there is a manufacturing bottleneck, so if we assume that the FDA approval process has not caused the bottleneck, the 180 000 pills available by the end of the year will be given out later, with an admittedly non zero loss of efficiency.
Why should we assume that the FDA approval has not caused that bottleneck? Because we should assume that if a prediction market knows the drug is getting approval, Pfizer knows it as well, and will manufacture as quickly as possible once they know the efficacy numbers. Sells of the drug will be supply, and not demand constrained, even through 2022. 50 million doses (the projected capacity for 2022) is not enough to cover the developed world.
Weak evidence: Molnupiravir was approved in the UK earlier this month, but is still not available. I am not certain whether that is entirely due UK’s decision to further test it in a trial for vaccinated people (which indeed will cost many lives).
Caveats: I am not saying that the FDA would act differently if there was no manufacturing bottleneck, just that in this case the slow FDA decision is much smaller.
Pfizer might also have some uncertainty because they do not know whether the FDA will approve the use of the drug for vaccinated people, which indeed might reduce upfront investment. But that is not directly related to the delay of the approval in itself.
Seems like Austria quickly acquiesced to your viewpoint, today they announced mandatory vaccination starting February, and in the meantime a lockdown for everybody. Personally, I would be fairly disappointed in their legal system if mandatory vaccination is allowed to stand, as the more sensible solution (mandatory vaccination and boosters for 65+ like France) would do the trick as well.
Yes, absolutely. But that is not my definition, just the one that (as I understand it) DiAngelo gives.
I would argue that DiAngelo’s and the progressive left definition of racism is not congruent and contradictory. On the one hand, it is defined by consequences alone : “Beliefs and actions are racist if they lead to minorities continued disadvantage compared to Whites.” Regardless of the connotation and baggage of the word, this is a useful concept.
However, this also means that pretty much everything you do is racist if you actually follow the definition: You do not want to attend a diversity seminar, forget about race and just do your work? By not addressing racist structures, you are enforcing them, and that is therefore racist. You merely want to read a fantasy novel before going to bed? Well, that keeps society the way it is, and therefore contributes to racism. Sounds extreme, but I contend that this is the logical consequence of that definition. And as an aside, a white CEO publicly using the n-word, and thereby being fired and replaced by a person of color, would not be racist by that definition.
Hey, we sent out our first batch of responses on Friday, could you kindly check your spam folder?
Obesity rates in China are rapidly rising, I doubt that there is a strong corresponding increase in soybean oil.
Note that Korea and Japan have very low obesity rates (around 2-3%), despite being highly developed and having widespread availability of hyper-palatable food. Definitely worth to check whether some chemicals are more present literally everywhere else than in those two countries.
Contra the obvious genetic hypothesis, genetically similar China and Taiwan have very high rates of obesity. I don’t know whether Koreans and Japanese might be genetically closer to each other than to Han Chinese.
Given the Confucian influence on the culture of Korea and Japan, maybe it is peer pressure that keeps people from becoming overweight? Plausible, so it might be worth to look into the case of hikkikomoris, which is the Japanese phenomenon of refusing to leave your room/apartment for months or years while being supported (usually) by your parents. As such, they are likely not actively managing their weight. They are obviously a hard group to survey, but these studies looked into characteristics of hikkikomori and neither mentioned overweight, so that is a point for cultural or genetic reasons.
However, your linked paper says that Japanese that move to America do tend to gain weight, so it cannot all just be genetics.
I wonder whether Asian kids adopted by non-Asian parents are more often overweight than kids raised by Asian parents.
This does not seem to be the case in Turkey, where they are right now handing out third doses of existing vaccines to people.
In their 1953 DNA helix paper, Watson and Crick also predicted that DNA would replicate in a semiconservative manner. This was later confirmed to be true in Meselson’s and Stahl’s experiment in 1958.
That sounds awesome! Indeed, last year’s Aumann game was great fun, so I am sure someone will be happy to organize it.
As others have said, I strongly dislike posting of 3 hour videos without any timemark or summary of the main points. This is making the community do the work of extracting the information; on top of that people will not watch most (or any) of the video before commenting, so discussion quality will be low.
To not be completely negative, I watched the section on “Vaccine suffers censored” (there are time marks in the description on youtube) where all three of them claim explicitly that there is no monitoring. This is clearly inaccurate, for example we know that Israel has recently reported that myocarditis might be occurring more often than expected in young men. In addition, I know that Germany has the SafeVac app to make it easier for people to report side effects after vaccination.
Sure; there is plenty of research on kids with asthma taking vaccines, e.g. here
“Varicella vaccine failure in children was not associated with asthma or the use of inhaled steroids, but with the use of oral steroids” .
For the same opinion as guideline, see here.
I believe the drugs.com reference is automatically generated; their database lookup (presumably!) works this way: “brand name”-> “name of substance”-> “interactions of this substance with another substance (in this case the vaccine)”. I.e. they do not make a disambiguation between form of administration.
2) There are some real concerns regarding systemic corticosteroid effects, but they mostly apply when getting shots and (I think) tablets. Inhaled budesonide has a much shorter half life and reduced bio availability, so there is much less reason for concern.
Long running conversations are extremely common on old-style bulletin message boards/fora (see here for an example. This is mostly/solely because of the software design where threads are ordered only by the latest reply. Whether or not this leads to qualitative debate is another matter, often the same points get belaboured ad nauseam and moderators have to close old threads.
Negotiations are seem better than take-it-or-leave-it plans.
I agree, but I am somewhat partial to “take-it” plans. Instead of any negotiation, Israel would unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank (just like they did from the Gaza Strip) ,agree with the US on terms and basically say: “You have a state now, do what you want with it” (not unlike how Singapore became an independent country involuntarily) .
This has the benefit of simplifying issues, and solves an underappreciated problem on the Palestinian side: Any politician signing a deal that loses Jerusalem or other religiously significant land immediately becomes a prime target for assassination.
This applies to the Israeli side as well of course (it’s what happened to Rabin); to solve it one could appoint somebody with a terminal sickness as the responsible Prime Minister.
As a non-American: If the problem just applies to Texas or to Republican states in general, are there substantial barriers to getting an abortion in another state (for rationalists)? I have heard that argument made often online for why passing state level abortion bans is ineffective.
Some points that I have not seen mentioned before:
that this is just the kind of thing that happens when retailers are foolishly prevented (by public opinion, if not by law) from charging the true market price.
Yes, this is the natural course of events, just like it is natural that people will steal from me if I leave the door to my house open at all times. This however does not mean that the thieves are not morally to blame. (I understand this was not your actual point, but it is a common point in libertarian discussions). Both the manufacturer and the retailers consider the scalpers’ intention and tactics to be unwelcome. (Per the linked article, the scalpers have to write human impersonating bots to fool the retailers’ websites; they are not using public facing APIs). In that sense, scalpers are not playing by the rules and it is reasonable for people to be angry at scalpers, even though it may not agree with an utilitarian outlook on ethics.
b) Others have argued that through scalping people’s time vs people’s money is traded. That is correct, but it seems to me that you are also trading luck for money. Obviously, getting a PS5 in a store drop is governed by chance as well as time. I am not entirely sure how that changes the net welfare calculus:
On the one hand, through scalping the good goes to the consumer who is willing to spend the most in one resource (money), which is strongly correlated to how much they desire the PS5 (which is good for net welfare). Luck is not correlated to how much a consumer wants the good.
On the other hand, if you award goods by lotteries, people do not have to waste resources that do not actually incentivize the production of PS5s.
c) In the particular case of a PS5, it is preferable that the good goes to people with more time, rather than with more money, because the former will have more time to actually use the PS5, thus deriving more benefit from it. If everybody were perfectly rational, the rich bidders should have already priced that into their price, but I doubt that people are that rational in this circumstance without being able to really prove it.