We will soon have a new, updated booster shot only eight or so months behind schedule. Given only 30% of America is boosted even once, not many people will accept this kind and generous (if rather late) offer. It won’t make much difference even to those who take advantage of it at this point, but better to update than not update, the usual various objections aside. Hopefully this makes the next update easier.
I didn't feel like going to the minimal effort of getting the full pdf to check the methods, but if that masterchef paper was using the televised show rather than uncut footage, then my prior is that it's garbage. The producers/editors are actively selecting what interview clips to show in order to produce the most drama. It would not surprise me at all if they purposefully choose interviews that show the least amount of confidence/greatest amount of fear in contestants that are going to go on to do well. It creates an underdog narrative that sells well.
The televised material is a curated narrative experience. Even if it's unscripted, these types of shows generally shoot so much extra material that they can cut and paste any story they want out of it.
Trying to get truth from analyzing it is a fool's errand.
> AI training technique that works by teaching AI to lie in order to tell people what they want to hear proves best at telling people what they want to hear.
To be fair, at the end of the day you always need a human to assess the outcome of a project which has the goal of making an ML system do what humans want. Even for direct analysis of the model weights you could claim something like "oh well this neural network's weights are intentionally obfuscated to trick your interpretability method into thinking it's benign, but actually they secretly compute something evil." So I think this complaint is setting an unobtainable bar.
"My solution would be that they agree on a reasonable fee, ideally going forward only, and that the United States happily cover the costs involved by letting Pfizer raise the price to match. Moderna deserves to be paid, and Pfizer shouldn’t have to pay, and we got orders of magnitude more benefit than all of this costs. A little bonus payment seems quite reasonable to me."
You seem to be much more worried about moral hazard and weird incentive design for student loans than for this new area of pharmaceutical research, despite mRNA specifically and biological editing being a much bigger deal in the long run than badly priced higher ed. Why is that?
"I notice that this is not how ‘supply and demand’ works. Does this person think the taxi/Uber/Lyft drivers won’t raise prices to compensate?"
I don't know about losing life savings, but I think this *is* how supply and demand works. The drivers can't just raise prices to cover the cost, because, due to demand, there are less people who want a ride that's $23 more expensive than there are who want a ride at current prices. If they're doing markets right, the current price is optimal for current levels of supply and demand.
Prices *will* increase, but only because of reduced supply: Less people are willing to drive when it costs them $23 more. Cost should increase less than $23, unless demand is perfectly inelastic. And those people who aren't willing to drive anymore are out a job, which may have been what was meant.
Not literally, of course. But I notice that my calculus for getting it is exactly the same as before; if my workplace is willing to pay for any potential time off due to complications, on top of paying for getting shot in the first place, then yes. Otherwise, no.
This feels kind of sad, making a personal public-health decision based purely on what bribes are or arn't offered. Quite like the annual flu vaccine, as you note (lotsa grocery stores with attached pharmacies offer 10% off coupons for getting shot, that's my main reason). I guess that's the penalty for lateness: cost-benefit analysis well and truly bottoming out in direct dollar terms.
College new-booster requirements do make me update slightly in the direction of "get shot to pre-empt any future silly and inconveniencing workplace-related mandates". But I'll still wait a bit, depending how supply situation looks (likely good due to low demand, but we'll see)...I work right next to a college, the handful of bureaucratically-screwed students will need it more than I do. That's the kind of "health equity" I can get behind.
>Once again, I’d direct everyone to the flu vaccine updates for the ‘never tested in humans’ objections.
One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens here, but I don't think it's entirely fair to compare the flu vaccine with something so much newer.
>Thus I think the more understudied question is how infectious people are during the rebound period. That’s the study we need most, because I think there is a reasonably large chance that the answer is ‘not enough to matter, you should maybe wear a mask but mostly go about your day.’
What we really need is a study to find out how infectious people are generally in various settings/disease stages.
>Monkeypox has peaked, or at least reached a plateau, because the MSM community adjusted its behavior.
Are you sure it's causation and not just correlation? After all, many disease waves in the past have had similar behaviour, right?
I believe "lose their life savings" is referring to drivers who purchased taxi medallions.
I didn't feel like going to the minimal effort of getting the full pdf to check the methods, but if that masterchef paper was using the televised show rather than uncut footage, then my prior is that it's garbage. The producers/editors are actively selecting what interview clips to show in order to produce the most drama. It would not surprise me at all if they purposefully choose interviews that show the least amount of confidence/greatest amount of fear in contestants that are going to go on to do well. It creates an underdog narrative that sells well.
The televised material is a curated narrative experience. Even if it's unscripted, these types of shows generally shoot so much extra material that they can cut and paste any story they want out of it.
Trying to get truth from analyzing it is a fool's errand.
> AI training technique that works by teaching AI to lie in order to tell people what they want to hear proves best at telling people what they want to hear.
To be fair, at the end of the day you always need a human to assess the outcome of a project which has the goal of making an ML system do what humans want. Even for direct analysis of the model weights you could claim something like "oh well this neural network's weights are intentionally obfuscated to trick your interpretability method into thinking it's benign, but actually they secretly compute something evil." So I think this complaint is setting an unobtainable bar.
"My solution would be that they agree on a reasonable fee, ideally going forward only, and that the United States happily cover the costs involved by letting Pfizer raise the price to match. Moderna deserves to be paid, and Pfizer shouldn’t have to pay, and we got orders of magnitude more benefit than all of this costs. A little bonus payment seems quite reasonable to me."
You seem to be much more worried about moral hazard and weird incentive design for student loans than for this new area of pharmaceutical research, despite mRNA specifically and biological editing being a much bigger deal in the long run than badly priced higher ed. Why is that?
"I notice that this is not how ‘supply and demand’ works. Does this person think the taxi/Uber/Lyft drivers won’t raise prices to compensate?"
I don't know about losing life savings, but I think this *is* how supply and demand works. The drivers can't just raise prices to cover the cost, because, due to demand, there are less people who want a ride that's $23 more expensive than there are who want a ride at current prices. If they're doing markets right, the current price is optimal for current levels of supply and demand.
Prices *will* increase, but only because of reduced supply: Less people are willing to drive when it costs them $23 more. Cost should increase less than $23, unless demand is perfectly inelastic. And those people who aren't willing to drive anymore are out a job, which may have been what was meant.
...same as the old booster?
Not literally, of course. But I notice that my calculus for getting it is exactly the same as before; if my workplace is willing to pay for any potential time off due to complications, on top of paying for getting shot in the first place, then yes. Otherwise, no.
This feels kind of sad, making a personal public-health decision based purely on what bribes are or arn't offered. Quite like the annual flu vaccine, as you note (lotsa grocery stores with attached pharmacies offer 10% off coupons for getting shot, that's my main reason). I guess that's the penalty for lateness: cost-benefit analysis well and truly bottoming out in direct dollar terms.
College new-booster requirements do make me update slightly in the direction of "get shot to pre-empt any future silly and inconveniencing workplace-related mandates". But I'll still wait a bit, depending how supply situation looks (likely good due to low demand, but we'll see)...I work right next to a college, the handful of bureaucratically-screwed students will need it more than I do. That's the kind of "health equity" I can get behind.
>Once again, I’d direct everyone to the flu vaccine updates for the ‘never tested in humans’ objections.
One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens here, but I don't think it's entirely fair to compare the flu vaccine with something so much newer.
>Thus I think the more understudied question is how infectious people are during the rebound period. That’s the study we need most, because I think there is a reasonably large chance that the answer is ‘not enough to matter, you should maybe wear a mask but mostly go about your day.’
What we really need is a study to find out how infectious people are generally in various settings/disease stages.
>Monkeypox has peaked, or at least reached a plateau, because the MSM community adjusted its behavior.
Are you sure it's causation and not just correlation? After all, many disease waves in the past have had similar behaviour, right?