You are not kind. Zvi indeed have humility to acknowledge his shortcomings and that will make him even more successful at the end.
One thing I disagree with him about vaccine boosters is that there is no point of having a booster if it works only for short time. All results that are obtained from 1 month observational trials are useless if booster will be given only annually. The cost for Pfizer vaccine is increased to $100. If we planned to give half of US population, it means 15 billion dollars for very little actual gain. We could have built more hospitals and higher more doctors to treat those rare persons who experience severe disease from covid while giving boosters to selected risk groups only.
Everybody will get covid once in a while. Initial vaccination was justified but now that everybody has got some immunity that has reduced risk to very low levels continuous vaccination of the whole population does not seem cost effective.
Ad gain of function research, what about going after it INSIDE the law? As in, hire a bunch of lawyers to find ways how to make life harder for relevant institutions, possibly even in areas not connected with that research?
I also think that if Gain of Function research is very valuable we should not ban it. We should make it safer, with more strict rules and safeguards and more oversight but still do it. Banning it will not prevent it being done in other jurisdictions but will prevent the advancement of the US science. We are reacting on this too emotionally right now, similar how some people reject nuclear power and similar things.
I agree that banning all GoF research, under all circumstances, would not be a first best solution. The problem is that the first best options - be smart about what to do and not do, use good safety procedures and transparency, etc - do not seem like things we can possibly pull off, and once you open the door you can't shut it again. To me it's less nuclear power and more nuclear weapons, where 'no, never' might not be the first best solution but I don't see another option.
If we were serious about GoF the way we are serious about other banned research, I don't think most of it gets to go elsewhere. I do think it goes away.
If the stereotype is true that black men are more well endowed than most, this FDA rule about condom sizes could be causing more unwanted black children(and higher black poverty). If the only condoms that you can get are insanely uncomfortable you're much less likely to use one. Not everyone can order their condoms from Europe. (which as usual doesn't have the same stupid rules as the FDA)
[reposting from WordPress] I think the condom size limit thing is out of date (note the Reddit thread was 10 years ago). ASTM D3492-16 was adopted in 2016, and as far as I can tell it increased the maximum flat width from 57mm to 69mm (still rather tight for some people, but obviously a big improvement).
On Gain of Function research, it may seem uncouth, but do you have any thoughts on the utility of protest? I've been through a few "crisis management scenario simulations" in the corporate world, one of which involved protesters and makes me think that it may be undervalued as a form of influence in areas which rarely encounter it (i.e. protest doesn't work that well against government since it has experience dealing with it, very few corporates do).
Curious that such a stark divergence between disabled and non-disabled workers happened shortly after the vaccine rollout. I guess it could be that disabled workers suddenly all started rapidly entering the workforce at that exact moment in time, but another explanation that would be consistent with that data is that a lot of non-disabled people already in the workforce suddenly started becoming disabled.
You are not kind. Zvi indeed have humility to acknowledge his shortcomings and that will make him even more successful at the end.
One thing I disagree with him about vaccine boosters is that there is no point of having a booster if it works only for short time. All results that are obtained from 1 month observational trials are useless if booster will be given only annually. The cost for Pfizer vaccine is increased to $100. If we planned to give half of US population, it means 15 billion dollars for very little actual gain. We could have built more hospitals and higher more doctors to treat those rare persons who experience severe disease from covid while giving boosters to selected risk groups only.
Everybody will get covid once in a while. Initial vaccination was justified but now that everybody has got some immunity that has reduced risk to very low levels continuous vaccination of the whole population does not seem cost effective.
Master thread for individual pieces of information I should consider for next week's posts (including the non-Covid one).
Master thread for Twitter accounts, Google spreadsheets and other potential multi-use information sources (including non-Covid info).
First account i checked if you followed was Yuri Deigin. Looks like your not? Definitely recommend
Master thread for meta discussions of better procedures and stuff like that.
Ad gain of function research, what about going after it INSIDE the law? As in, hire a bunch of lawyers to find ways how to make life harder for relevant institutions, possibly even in areas not connected with that research?
I also think that if Gain of Function research is very valuable we should not ban it. We should make it safer, with more strict rules and safeguards and more oversight but still do it. Banning it will not prevent it being done in other jurisdictions but will prevent the advancement of the US science. We are reacting on this too emotionally right now, similar how some people reject nuclear power and similar things.
I agree that banning all GoF research, under all circumstances, would not be a first best solution. The problem is that the first best options - be smart about what to do and not do, use good safety procedures and transparency, etc - do not seem like things we can possibly pull off, and once you open the door you can't shut it again. To me it's less nuclear power and more nuclear weapons, where 'no, never' might not be the first best solution but I don't see another option.
If we were serious about GoF the way we are serious about other banned research, I don't think most of it gets to go elsewhere. I do think it goes away.
Your link to the FIRE story actually goes to a FT story on Desantis
If the stereotype is true that black men are more well endowed than most, this FDA rule about condom sizes could be causing more unwanted black children(and higher black poverty). If the only condoms that you can get are insanely uncomfortable you're much less likely to use one. Not everyone can order their condoms from Europe. (which as usual doesn't have the same stupid rules as the FDA)
[reposting from WordPress] I think the condom size limit thing is out of date (note the Reddit thread was 10 years ago). ASTM D3492-16 was adopted in 2016, and as far as I can tell it increased the maximum flat width from 57mm to 69mm (still rather tight for some people, but obviously a big improvement).
I say “as far as I can tell” because the actual standard costs $63 to read. Here’s a more recent Reddit thread instead: https://www.reddit.com/r/bigdickproblems/comments/s6xv2y/why_are_condoms_sizes_so_limited_in_north_america
On Gain of Function research, it may seem uncouth, but do you have any thoughts on the utility of protest? I've been through a few "crisis management scenario simulations" in the corporate world, one of which involved protesters and makes me think that it may be undervalued as a form of influence in areas which rarely encounter it (i.e. protest doesn't work that well against government since it has experience dealing with it, very few corporates do).
I think protest could be helpful on the margin if it could be sustained in quantity. It wouldn't work on its own, though.
Best source of information and accessible interpretation anywhere—thank you.
Curious that such a stark divergence between disabled and non-disabled workers happened shortly after the vaccine rollout. I guess it could be that disabled workers suddenly all started rapidly entering the workforce at that exact moment in time, but another explanation that would be consistent with that data is that a lot of non-disabled people already in the workforce suddenly started becoming disabled.