monkeypizza

11 ms·

1.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Right. I'm not saying eval(their net behavior)>0; I'm saying that if your response function is always negative, you lose the ability to influence their response. Have you heard the one about the country with the death penalty f
2.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Watch out not to condemn them no matter what they do. Sure, they messed up in the past, but given the situation they found themselves in when they saw this report, this response is still good. You risk making discourse difficult when you c
3.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
I'd be curious what you think of "Ghettoside" - a book from the left that examines the claims implied by your linked comic about the nature of the suffering we are trying to prevent: https://www.vox.com/2016&#
4.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
If you define away neutrality, there is no neutrality, yes. But does everyone agree with your definition? This seems more like a "you're with us or against us" trick. "I care about protecting all children" is still
5.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
right - and this all started when someone who said "hey, let's stop people from shutting down discussion" was accused of being intolerant. When in fact for the existence of tolerance to continue, some self-defense is necessar
6.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Yeah, this debate has two instances of it from opposite sides: The original story claimed to feature people who were (voluntarily) not accepting speech from someone they suggested was subtly intolerant. Then someone said "we shouldn&
7.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Right. The original comment suggested that any prohibitions made by an allegedly tolerant society invalidate their claim. I don't think that is a very useful definition of tolerance. The only stable system here, if there is one, migh
8.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
I was just bringing it up to get an admission that "there is a line". Everything else is about debating where that line is. The old ACLU set it really far into the "freedom" zone - recently people want to restrict it mo
9.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
In your definition of tolerant, is it required to tolerate even attempts to destroy the tolerant person? i.e. is there a line beyond which tolerance doesn't apply? Where do laws fit in here? I honestly thought that tolerance already
10.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Yes, this is a coherent, stable proposal. For a tolerant society to adopt complete tolerance, even of things designed to destroy their society, is unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
11.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Abstract: When vaccines are in limited supply, expanding the number of people who receive some vaccine can reduce disease and mortality compared to concentrating vaccines in a subset of the population. A corollary of such dose-sparing s
12.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Your question is addressed here: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37366988/Dose_sp... When vaccines are in limited supply, expanding the number of people who receive some vaccine can reduc
13.
Concerns about Covid evolution sould not hold back efforts to expand vaccination [pdf](dash.harvard.edu)
2 points by monkeypizza 6y ago|1 comments
14.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Would combining two people's double doses all into one person, raising their resistance even more while leaving three people uncovered be beneficial in not setting up situations that would select for vaccine-immune strains? This is im
15.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Is there something in NACI's analysis that you disagree with specifically? Their argument seems to be that we have 2 months of evidence that hospitalizations & negative effects are strongly reduced even by single doses, and we can
16.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Canada came out with support for first doses first: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization...
17.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
The summary: While studies have not yet collected four months of data on vaccine effectiveness after the first dose, the first two months of real world effectiveness are showing sustained high levels of protection. ... Short te
18.
Canadian government switches to support for first doses first(canada.ca)
16 points by monkeypizza 6y ago|6 comments
19.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
1. China has prior restraint on everything associated with working in the media - purchase of materials required for publication of newspapers, licenses to publish media, licenses for journalists, all requiring heavy inspection of political
20.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Sure, Alex should update his criticism, but it's still valid to look back at why it took this long; First Doses First has been out for a while - it's been 2 months since, for example, Tony Blair publicly advocated for it. I think
21.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
> There’s no need to experiment. People who haven't caught coronavirus yet are still likely to catch it and be at risk. That is, new people are still being infected and are likely to be for a few more months yet. What calculation a
22.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
What is the relationship of his credentials to his logical argument? By arguing from credentials you implicitly take the side of the status quo in history; you'd have been arguing against every overturning of conventional wisdom. I&#x
23.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Good point. I'd imagine we could leave it voluntary, and just start the "delayed 2nd dose" policy later.
24.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
> It's not appropriate to start experimenting on the general population based on a hunch. By varying the parameters of the situation, could you be induced to change your view? i.e. vary CFR up to 1%, 10%, 50% - given that you ackno
25.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
The comparison was between giving 2 doses to one person over 65, and nothing to another other person over 65 giving one dose each to two 65+ people We have evidence that total harm prevention under the second case is higher tha
26.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
from an earlier post in the series: Michael Osterholm, Regents Professor, McKnight Presidential Endowed Chair in Public Health, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) and state epidemiologist for the
27.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Other related posts including quotes from supporting experts: https://marginalrevolution.com/?s=first+doses+first This is more about looking at the ability of our systems to change their response in emergencies; why are obv
28.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
Right. So continue your reasoning: you are arguing that if we pay the minimum required to produce an item, from that point onwards, more money doesn't unlock additional production? I agree you need to be able to charge enough to cover
29.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
So many people in the comments are just certain that more money wouldn't have made any difference to vaccine production, and that economic considerations had nothing to do with it. The arguments they make fail to simple comparison tes
30.
by monkeypizza 6y ago
The OP doesn't actually propose giving the money as profit. An alternative interpretation of his proposal to "let people pay more" would be for the government to offer a prize to companies for producing X number of additiona

More ›