PhD in math. MIRI Summer Fellow in 2016. Worked as a professor for a while, now I run my family’s business.
I agree that living conditions are better today than several decades ago and worse today than 3 years ago.
That being said, I have seen a lot of mixed evidence and arguments about long covid and haven’t figured out how to best think about it.
I’m confused by your use of “no longer” above. I don’t believe we have ever lived in such a world., even before covid. We live in such a world to less of an extent now than we did before. Covid is one more thing that sometimes doesn’t turn out ok in the end. But there are many other such thing, including many other diseases.
Could you provide more details on getting Paxlovid? My understanding was that it was only authorized for people with certain health conditions.
I agree that the degree of air circulation within the terminal is an important factor. I’m not certain that the terminal is safer than the plane, but I think more likely than not the terminal is safer.
This link from my previous comment is not exactly a peer reviewed article, but it suggests that the difference in air replacement rate in a well-ventilated versus poorly-ventilated space (the terms they use for mixture of the air, not for air change rate) is only about a factor of 3. Of course, there are different degrees of poor ventilation.
I would be really interested to hear the perspective of somebody with greater expertise in the relevant engineering and physics.
Airplanes do an excellent job circulating air, and are relatively safe places to be. Your risk in the terminal and the taxi greatly exceeds your risk on the plane.
I used to agree with this. But I recently realized it likely isn’t true. Consider the following:
The time to remove an airborne contaminant depends on the Air Change Rate (measured in Air Changes per Hour, or ACH) and how well the air is mixed in the space.
Air in an airplane cabin has an air change rate of about 13 to 15 ACH. (Actually, the one paper linked in this bullet makes my overall argument pretty well, though it doesn’t reference airport terminals)
Based on this paper, I’d say that an air change rate 0.5 ACH is a fairly low estimate for an airport terminal.
So if the airport terminal is about 30 times less crowded than an airplane (as measured by number of people per unit volume of air), then all else being equal, the risk of covid for each hour spent in the terminal would be comparable to that in the airplane. It’s more complicated because the air in the airplane is mixed better than in the terminal most likely. But I think the airplane is actually way more crowded than the terminal, by a factor orders of magnitude larger than 30. Airport terminals typically have high ceilings. Overall, I think the terminal is much safer per unit time than the airplane, even considering the better ventilation on the airplane.
On top of that, the air filtration on an airplane is often turned off while the airplane is sitting at the gate.
Regarding more people declining the second shot than the first shot, my best guess would be that people took the first shot, and either they themselves or one of their acquaintances had an extremely bad side effect, either actual or perceived, so they decided not to take the second shot. I know one person who followed this reasoning. Her husband fell ill after his vaccination with unclear causes, and she attributed it to the vaccine. She finally did decide to get her second shot and booster recently.
Another possibility could be that some financial incentives incentivized the first shot but not the second shot.
Well, the electric eraser was maybe a slight improvement over my manual eraser when I use both together, but not enough to really solve my problem. I went back to using mostly the manual one as it’s more convenient.
I just found out that electric erasers are a thing. (Similar to an electric toothbrush, but an eraser.) I have ordered a high-end electric eraser, going to see whether it helps me to do better using my current paper and pencil setup.
Anecdotal, but similar—when I used to play in chess tournaments, I had a sense that I performed better and made fewer errors when I had more sleep, to the point of aiming for 9 or so hours of sleep the night before a tournament.
Cool idea, I like the historic and low-tech aspect. I will look into it.
I love blackboards, I was a research mathematician for many years and they have a special place in my heart along with a stick of Hagoromo chalk. But they don’t fit my purposes here for much the same reasons as dry erase boards—they erase accidentally and don’t allow for small writing.
I’m not familiar with them and am curious to learn more. My main concern would be whether they allow for fine-scale writing and erasing, since I am writing in small print with lines close together and erasing line by line. Is there a particular brand that you would recommend?
How is the older version better than the newer version (other than meedstrom’s comment)?
Thanks. This is similar to what I’m looking for, but a bit too small. I’d prefer something the size of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper, but I might give Remarkable a try.
I just quickly browsed this post. Based on the overall topic, you might also be interested in these inconsistency results in infinitary utiliatarianism written by my PhD advisor (a set theorist) and his wife (a philosopher).
I’m curious to learn more about the thesis that caffeine or other stimulant use can completely mitigate the effects of sleep deprivation until 30+ hours without sleep. My own (subjective, anecdotal) experience with caffeine is that occasional (once or twice a week) caffeine use fairly effectively mitigates occasional sleep deprivation if I got say 5-6 hours of sleep the night before as opposed to my preferred 7-8, but is not too effective if I slept less than 4 hours the night before. The more often I use caffeine, the less effective the caffeine becomes, and that furthermore, during periods of time when I use caffeine regularly (say a cup of coffee every day), I get a time several hours after I have my coffee when I have a “caffeine drop” and feel sleepy, so that my overall productivity isn’t much better than if I had no caffeine. I haven’t tried dealing with this by having several cups of coffee a day. That might work with regard to productivity, but I expect the side effects (jitters, energy/crash cycles, difficulty sleeping, and also reduced sensitivity to caffeine negating the euphoric effect of occasional caffeine consumption) would be quite unpleasant to me.
What was your old job, and what is your current job?
“If we add all the percentage point increases (i.e. how many more percentage points serology positive participants experienced persistent symptoms vs serology negative participants—data from table 2) then we get 20.3%.”
I am not sure whether this reasoning is correct. It seems to be dependent on how the symptoms are categorized. For instance, suppose we divided fatigue into moderate fatigue and severe fatigue. The increased probability for each might be 5%, and then you would get 25.3% rather than 20.3%. Or suppose we combined fatigue and poor attention, which are likely correlated. The combined increased probability of “fatigue or poor attention” is likely less than 7.8%, and this would bring you down from 20%.