Cases increased this week, as expected. Deaths also increased, which I did not expect so soon, indicating a bigger and faster winter wave. That was not the big event in the West this week with respect to Covid. The big event this week in the West’s Covid experience was a memory of events past. Patrick McKenzie wrote a very long and very worthwhile magnum opus about his efforts in VaccinateCA to get vaccine shots into arms, and what he learned about our government and public health systems along the way. If you read one thing this week,
So China predicted peaks are mostly on or before the first of the year. What's the chances we get a new more infectious strain out of China. (And if we do what will the strain be called? It's to bad we already passed over xi, maybe pi :^)
I pre-ordered The Truth About Wuhan and it just arrived yesterday.
So far I'm just a chapter in and it's not clear what the "biggest lie in history" is going to be. One of the Amazon reviews says the first 80 pages are self-aggrandizing biography.
It's a bit disappointing given the author was a vice president at EcoHealth Alliance.
On the timing of the surge in China. The idea that loosening restrictions isn;t leading to a rise in cases is obviously dumb. But theory that is being given weight by people who write about China is that they were expecting a surge anyway, so by timing the changes at the same time and burying that under an even bigger surge they avoid the embarrassment of their policies having been shown not to work. And instead can blame all cases on the loosening of restrictions (and therefore on the public who asked for it). Which would be suitably machiavellian, if possibly overly competent.
Sometimes I feel like Forrest Gump reading things like this.
> If I had to point at any one artifact in particular, Inadequate Equilibria is a good articulation of a
> larger memeplex that made me comfortable with "If the evidence of a system's operation
> contradicts what the Efficient Market Hypothesis counsels is the probable functioning of the
> system, trust the evidence. Thousands of lives savable by one dedicated team of non-specialists > is actually not all that low probability."
Okay, so, he's saying that markets can be bad at updating and if you see good evidence of this you should trust that evidence even if you're non-specialist (but otherwise doing your due diligence)?
So China predicted peaks are mostly on or before the first of the year. What's the chances we get a new more infectious strain out of China. (And if we do what will the strain be called? It's to bad we already passed over xi, maybe pi :^)
It's amazing how nobody dancing on the graves of white American "anti-vaxxers" is calling the Chinese a bunch of anti-vaxxers.
I pre-ordered The Truth About Wuhan and it just arrived yesterday.
So far I'm just a chapter in and it's not clear what the "biggest lie in history" is going to be. One of the Amazon reviews says the first 80 pages are self-aggrandizing biography.
It's a bit disappointing given the author was a vice president at EcoHealth Alliance.
On the timing of the surge in China. The idea that loosening restrictions isn;t leading to a rise in cases is obviously dumb. But theory that is being given weight by people who write about China is that they were expecting a surge anyway, so by timing the changes at the same time and burying that under an even bigger surge they avoid the embarrassment of their policies having been shown not to work. And instead can blame all cases on the loosening of restrictions (and therefore on the public who asked for it). Which would be suitably machiavellian, if possibly overly competent.
Sometimes I feel like Forrest Gump reading things like this.
> If I had to point at any one artifact in particular, Inadequate Equilibria is a good articulation of a
> larger memeplex that made me comfortable with "If the evidence of a system's operation
> contradicts what the Efficient Market Hypothesis counsels is the probable functioning of the
> system, trust the evidence. Thousands of lives savable by one dedicated team of non-specialists > is actually not all that low probability."
Okay, so, he's saying that markets can be bad at updating and if you see good evidence of this you should trust that evidence even if you're non-specialist (but otherwise doing your due diligence)?
Thanks again for these posts!