In the counterfactual where lesswrong had the epistemic and moderation standards you desire, what would have been the result of the three posts in question, say three days after they were first posted? Can you explain why, using the standards you elucidated here?
(If you’ve answered this elsewhere, I apologize).
Full disclosure: I read all three of those posts, and downvoted the third post (and only that one), influenced in part by some of the comments to that post.
“However there’s definitely an additional problem, which is that the fees are going to the city.”
Money which the city could presumably use to purchase scarce and vital longshoreman labor.
The city is getting a windfall because it owns a scarce resource. Would you consider this a problem if the port were privately owned?
What Ryan is calling punishment is just an ECON 101 cost increase.
I’m actually ok with the social pressures inherent in the activity. It’s a subtle reminder of the real influence of this community. The fact that this community would enforce a certain norm makes me more likely to be a conscientious objector in contexts with the opposite norm. (This is true of historical C.O.s, who often come from religious communities).
I’d highly recommend ‘The Bomber Mafia’ by Malcolm Gladwell on this subject, which details the internal debates of the US Army Air Corps generals during WWII.
One of the key questions was whether to use the bombers to target strategic industries, or just for general attrition (i.e. firebombing of civilians). Obviously the first one would have been preferable from a humanitarian perspective (and likely would have ended the European War sooner), but it was very difficult to execute in practice.
I think the Bob example is very informative!
I think there’s an intuitive and logical reason why we think Bob and Edward are worse off. Their happiness is contingent on the masquerade continuing, which has a probability less than one in any plausible setup.
(The only exception to this would be if we’re analyzing their lives after they are dead)
Yes, I was completely turned off from ‘debate’ as a formal endeavor as a high schooler, despite my love for informal debate.
One of the main problems is that debate contests are usually formulated as zero sum, whereas the typical informal debate I engage in is not.
Do you know of any formats for nonzero sum debate competitions where the competitors argue points they actually believe in? e.g. both debaters get more points if they identify a double-crux, and you win by having more points in the tournament as a whole, not by beating your opponent.
I believe that determinism and free will are both good models of reality, albeit at different conceptual level.
Human brains are high dimensional chaotic systems. I believe that if you put a very smart human in a task that demands creativity and insight, it will be extremely difficult to predict what they’ll do, even if you precisely knew their connectome and data inputs. Maybe that’s not the same thing as a philosophical “free will”, but I don’t see how it would result in a different end experience.
This chapter would make a great movie.
Russia’s’ has an extra quote.
Alice’s explanation of the Bayesian model sounds like technobabble. Unless that was the intent, it could use a bit more elaboration.
Depends on the environment. My assumption is that the venue is sufficiently crowded that the tamperer would never be alone with the drink, and the main protection is their risk of being spotted.
A tamper proof solution would likely be far more costly to implement.
Lids and straws. Presumably this would make slipping a drug in way more obvious.
“Miriam placed poker her hand against” should be “Miriam placed her hand” or “poked her hand”
I think I agree. I hadn’t realized the UK vaccination rates were so high. In that case I’ll lean towards the pockets of unvaccinated reaching herd immunity + shorter incubation period hypothesis.
I agree that this seems to explain it, but it raises a new question: how did the antibody rate get so high? Is it possible that part of Delta’s contagiousness is that it has a lot more carriers who don’t get sick?
Good point! I’ll edit my fermi analysis to reflect that.
Even in a scenario where all unvaccinated people were infected with covid, I would expect none of the Georgetown undergraduates to die from covid or get covid longer than 12 weeks.
Here’s my fermi analysis:
in your 20s, covid CFR is .0001, compared to .01 for population as a whole.
covid longer than 12 weeks is .03 for covid population as a whole.
assume really long covid scales similarly to death and hospitalization
mRNA reduces these both by .9.
That gives us .03 x .01 x .1, for a case really long covid rate of .00003.
.00003 x 6532 = .2 really long covid
.00001 x 6532 = .07 deaths
And given that you are primarily interacting with other unvaccinated, young individuals, you are less likely to be infected than the average vaccinated person. So the real number is probably less than .1 person getting covid beyond 12 weeks.
Let me know if you see errors in my reasoning.
He recommends that for communities, which presumably include significant numbers of unvaccinated folks. Which, if targeted to N95 or better masks, and actually enforced, could have substantial effect!
But having members of the least infectious subpopulation voluntarily mask is pretty much useless.
As to your second point, there is strong evidence that is not the case: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34250518/ Vaccinated individuals who get infected have substantially lower viral loads, and thus are substantially less contagious.
You reach the opposite conclusion from Tomas Pueyo (who seems to be your primary reference):
“If you’re vaccinated, you’re mostly safe, especially with mRNA vaccines. Keep your guard up for now, avoid events that might become super-spreaders, but you don’t need to worry much more than that.”
Checking your math, I think your biggest error is equating long covid (at least one symptom still present after 28 days) with lifelong CFS. The vast majority seem to clear up in the next 8 weeks: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01292-y
I believe the 64% reduction in symptomatic infections is an outlier (compare with the UK data, e.g.), and if you’ve had an mRNA vaccine the number is much higher.
Finally, not accounting for age in your long covid statistics is a mistake. Young people are making up a large percentage of the infected because they are disproportionally unvaccinated. Those young and vaccinated are quite well protected from severe infection. And while some long covid comes from mild cases, it’s highly correlated with severe cases.
Second, the way that “IF .. THEN” is defined in propositional or first order seems not to capture quite what we mean by those words in ordinary language. I think this is part of what you are pointing out.
I feel like the confusion between propositional logic and ordinary language is the only reason Lob’s theorem is even being discussed in the first place. The car’s programmers used IF X THEN Y to represent the statement “If X, then Y happens”, which means something quite different. Other than the incidental similarity of these statements in the English language, why is this more relevant than any other programming error?
Fair. Since it’s been better answered elsewhere, I withdrew the comment.
No. Getting vaccinated is prosocial. Do it ASAP.
In addition to what Willa said, even if the doses you don’t take were magically redistributed to a poor country, it might not prevent any more infections than you getting a dose. Many poor countries have been able to control the infection well. And just because Switzerland has things under control now, doesn’t mean that will be the case forever (see e.g. the Delta variant).