Diligently followup on and solve (or minimize the impact of) health conditions and illnesses
Are you referring to habit formation with treated ADHD or untreated? There are lots of studies that find dramatic differences in quality of life depending on your answer to that question.
(I won’t even get into optimizing the treatment a la MTA.)
In the interest of not falling prey to the illusion of transparency, I must ask if you are familiar with normal hospital offload times in Southern California.
It was pretty common to have crews tied up waiting hours at emergency rooms even in normal circumstances.
Sample numbers from Central California : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://emsaac.org/%3Foption%3Dcom_fileman%26view%3Dfile%26routed%3D1%26name%3DJohn%20Surface%20-%20EMSAAC%202019%20Surface%204-23-19.pdf%26folder%3DLEMSA/Conference%26container%3Dfileman-files&ved=2ahUKEwiH85mTyIvuAhWiCjQIHYZnDhY4ChAWMAd6BAgEEAE&usg=AOvVaw1RolpERTpzHHNVMq1_abxc
full triage mode:
full triage mode:
The crews are instructed to stop transporting patients who are unlikely to be resuscitated. In other words, before this point, patients were being transported to hospitals for the sake of warm fuzzies, not utilions.
From the perspective of terminal values, I’m not sure if this change actually changes anything.
The $20 may be a stand in for consumer—hostile behaviors like bad customer service or high ATM fees.
I don’t know the best way to phrase this but some of this advice is really foundational (eg exercise, sleep, etc). There should be an item here about rapidly and persistently getting professional medical and mental health when you have trouble with the basics.
I had a distinctly probabilistic experience at a doctor’s office today.
Condition X has a “gold standard” way to diagnose it (my doctor described it as being almost 100%) but is very expensive (time, effort, and money). It is also not feasible while everyone is staying at home.
However, at the end of the visit, I had given him enough information to make a “clinical” diagnoses (from a statistically & clinically validated questionnaire, descriptions of alternative explanations that have been ruled out, etc) and start treating it.
In hindsight, I can see the probability mass clumping together over the years until there is a pile on X.
I’m thankful to Less Wrong-style thinking for making me comfortable enough with uncertainty to accept this outcome . The doctor may not have pulled out a calculator but this feels like “shut up and multiply” & “make beliefs pay rent”.
How would you say this approach relates to https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dJQ7BFz9ZPqstP3an/urgent-and-important-how-not-to-do-your-to-do-list?
You wrote that it’s important for your preferences to be fairly stable. I’ve been using a prioritizing grid (e.g. https://www.beverlyryle.com/prioritizing-grid) to go through my entire do list in 1 fell swoop. I wonder if that’s more or less efficient than your approach.
Thanks for mentioning the 14 pairs of shoes. I felt a bit silly when doing something similar but I realized that while it’s a hassle to carry lots of boxes to and from the local UPS drop off location, I’m not doing anything that is out-of-the-ordinary (if I were buying shoes in person at say, Nordstroms).
To extend your thought a little...if you have any pain walking around and switching shoes doesn’t help or it hurts while walking barefoot, consult a doctor.
From one chronic health person to another...
Consider filling up a second dispenser ahead of time. That way, if you’re completely exhausted but it’s time to take your medication, you can yank the second box off the shelf and refill things when you’re more awake. It also gives you a 1 week buffer to refill your prescription.
Pill counting trays are also helpful if you have to take medications that come in a bottle. Buy one that has Amazon reviews from real pharmacists and put the cap under the spout on the right side to catch any runaway pills. This will dramatically reduce the # of pills that fall to the floor.
Buy new blanket that isn’t falling apart. Semi-permanently reduced the ugh field.
If I take “Doctor diagnosed X” as strong evidence that I have X, then I should find the latest treatment guidelines/summary articles for X once a year. Led to a possibly permanent treatment algorithm (full or nearly-full symptom management) for 2 chronic problems with little to no side effects. Also caught a medication error with the acquired knowledge. Also a found a treatment that greatly helps (but not eliminates/prevents) another chronic condition.
May also have turned up a life-altering diagnoses but that is to-be-confirmed by real medical experts.
>general knowledge acquisition
Using Sci-Hub. Reduces the “Relevant article in PubMed based on the abstract->paste the PMID->oh, this is useful” loop to <1 min.
If necessary, I can try to quantify the benefits of the above items but it’s a little like the RENT song about measuring a year.
Please don’t forget that some young healthy people are essential workers who might not really have a choice about this.
That’s not in the Getting Started or the Questions sections, which are the places I looked.
I found 2 bugs in the Less Wrong website. Where do they go? (this is the first bug; I couldn’t find a place to report problems after looking through the FAQ and home page)
I got the following:
>Imagine that it is one week later and your solution failed! Do you really think your solution will work? (Enter “yes” or “no)
Isn’t the answer always going to be “no”? You just told me that it failed.
Imagine that you are trying to find a doctor in a particular specialty. You are able to think of 12 possible reasons the doctor might refuse to see you. Some are more probable than others and some are easier to minimize/solve than others. You have 5 or 6 doctors to choose from and the 12 failure modes apply to each of them differently. For instance, Dr. A may have a 25% chance of saying “no new patients” whereas Dr. B might be “50%” and Dr. C may be “80%”. What would be the recommended way to reduce the likelihood of failure without spending an inordinate amount of time mitigating things?
1 solution would be to identify the probabilities for all 12 for 2 doctors given what is currently known (for instance, if problem X might derail things 80% of the time but you can think of something that will drive it down to 50%, leave it at 80% for now) and then make a decision tree to figure out how many options should be evaluated and which of the 12 things actually need to be mitigated.
For instance, maybe 8 of the 12 things for Dr. A have low probabilities (1%-5%) and the remaining 4 are 25%-50%. Similarly, for Dr. B, perhaps 11 are 1%-5% and the 12th one is 10%. Then you know that even with this worst case scenario, the odds of both A and B turning you down are very low (e.g. 50% * 10% = .5%) and you don’t have to even look at the other doctors. Then you can go back to the list of 12 things and figure out which items will increase your odds for the least amount of effort.
At that point, you can pick the desired probability of success and work at each of the mitigations in turn until you reach the desired number.
I hope you don’t mind my saying “You’re very welcome.”
(Healthcare, public safety)
And thank you very much for providing these regular figures and interpretations.
The call taker may be required to follow an algorithm (e.g. https://prioritydispatch.net/resource-library/). This is not to discount all your points; everything you wrote is likely true too.
Finally, it’s possible that the high arbitrary cutoff for evidence is a reflection of the agency’s priorities and resources.
At the end of the article, you wrote “Adding in police and firemen would make it an even 20.” Does adding EMS personnel change the estimate at all?
Wow, that’s a bit strongly worded.
I’m going to have to figure out why the journal article gave those figures. Maybe I should send your comment to the authors...