LC

Great Video of Feynman. I agree that laymen should be not be prescribing medicine but we should be challenging doctors and other experts when they might be wrong after we have done thinking and research. In the last year my Dad has had a cardiologist give very bad advice and another doc wanted to remove part of his Colon. The Colon removal was highly unethical, bad advice and unnecessary and the doc was ashamed and backed down after my Dad confronted him. (Incentives are powerful). If you are not challenging you doctors at times then you are not optimizing you health. I have seen this too many times where the doctor puts money over the health of the patient. I have also heard stories of Orthopedic surgeons getting drunk at weddings and then laughing at all the unnecessary back surgery they do. Caveat Emptor. Yes I agree. That is why it’s important to distinguish between authority and expertise. A diagnosis isn’t valid just because a doctor delivers it (authority) but on its merits (expertise).

This is one of my most hated biases but I also think it is one misunderstood and it's important to be clear on what the actual bias is. Richard Feynman called it "honors": In his words, it is "rotten" and I agree. But at the same time, people sometimes mistake authority with expertise. To use your eardrop example - yes there was miscommunication, but that does not mean the nurse, nor yourself or WebMD, nor your tax accountant or politician of choice, should be the one examining and prescribing medicine for your ear ache.

I think so. It adds no investment value and has morphed into a useless distraction to bicker amongst ourselves. Also I think Sanjeev has mentioned it will be removed in the next major update to the website but he would have to confirm that

Oh wow, RIP Rick.

This is counterintuitive, but if you actually allow more real estate developers, fewer zoning restrictions and let them build lot more, that would increase the supply so that price can come down to construction cost of buildings. Anyway, Covid should help now by effectively increasing supply by decreasing demand for needing to take the train to downtown everyday, so that folks can move further out or to other towns. This is true in theory but not necessarily in practice, particularly in cities. Many of the building costs are one-time fixed costs, for example laying foundation, walkways, utility hookups, HVAC units, permitting, etc. Why this matters is that it encourages over-building, as the incremental cost to laying a new floor is minimal.

A question to orthopa (really anyone willing to take a crack at it): If the vast majority of excess deaths would have occurred over the next coming months ("life expectance is months"), then why has there been no observed trend of "under-mortality" to the tune of 100k+ in the 6-7 months past the initial spike? Or to borrow Cigarbutt's wording of the same sentiment: Taking the NYC excess mortality data for example, even forgetting the cause (direct, indirect, marginal or even lockdown related) of deaths for analytic purposes (life expectancy lost because of whatever happened during the excess mortality period), if the life expectancy of all those who died was a few days, weeks or months, how is it mathematically or logically possible that excess mortality has not reversed in the negative direction now that reported Covid deaths have gone down to very low levels (close to zero) for months?

There are a few posts from back in March: https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/coronavirus/msg401471/#msg401471 https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/coronavirus/msg401476/#msg401476 That illustrate the desire for widespread, early testing was not just to find more positives and feed the flame. I'll quote myself from 8 months ago: For all we know, widespread testing could show the severity of this virus is totally overblown as critics on this thread have suggested, and therefore the pandemic responses are unwarranted. Our portfolios and emotions could have been spared much stress.

Quite ironic considering in Feb/Mar/Apr many folks were pleading for increased testing to determine accurate infection and spread statistics, but were met with resistance (what good will testing do!?).

Yea but Greg there is some inconsistency, because here is what seems to be the "right-wing" interpretation of these events (feel free to correct me here, though): Virus released from Wuhan lab: No evidence, but let's believe it and take commensurate actions regardless. Mail in voter fraud: No evidence, but let's believe it and take commensurate actions regardless. Third wave of coronavirus: No evidence, b-Don't you dare suggest lockdowns without evidence! I am all for prudency, and I have no problem (in fact I would encourage) states to strengthen their processes around mail-in voting. And I think the US government and international health groups should investigate the Wuhan lab for their controls around these viruses. Of course this would be a lot easier if USA was still a leading, influential member of the WHO...

Go for a fishing trip! Heck, you might land this sweet catch:

Frank, this is becoming too reasonable for such a contentious topic. I think the reason is because this is difficult to implement. First, what is the cutoff? 30 years old let's say? Sounds reasonable, maybe +/- 5 or so years. Now even with a threshold, not many aspects of society are so cleanly segmented by age. Schools would be the most obvious one, but even those are filled with teachers and administrators. In theory it makes sense but I think implementation is the challenge.

Though I disagree with the policy prescription, I think that's fair. See and that's also my own bias. I live a comfortable life and I am young in the context of COVID. I can afford social distancing. There's an old line from that Dirty Jobs show, where the host (Mike Rowe) questions the whole, "safety first" attitude. Sometimes, he argues, it's "safety second, or third". And that was in the context of the working class / paycheck-to-paycheck individuals. To say nothing of age ranges for which this virus has disparate impacts. So how do we both protect people and allow people to work and live? Well first, what do we know? There was a violent initial spike, a somewhat extended but less-deadly second wave, and now we are entering flu season. OK - so then what is the optimal response here? I think it is reasonable to plan for something closer to the "second wave". This is a compromise between both extremes: the initial violent spike on one end, and a situation where COVID has essentially run its course on the other end. So then I would argue the optimal response would be continued mask wearing, some social distancing in high-exposure cities and events, and statewide-tailored responses with federal support for things like medical resources, unemployment resources, if needed.

It is when you hunt it with your M-16!!!

And I've made my approach to assessing COVID severity very clear: I assume all excess deaths in 2020 are COVID-caused. I believe nobody can forecast with certainty whether a third wave will occur or not. Therefore, I believe prudency is necessary. If positive cases are increasing, social policies should be increased commensurately - in case those positive cases turn into excess deaths.

This is you having it both ways:

So let me get this straight. You're upset people aren't leaning on past history to predict the future course of COVID. But when people point to the 2nd wave as an outlying historical event (respiratory illnesses historically recede in warm months, contrary to COVID), I guess that is not the "history" of your choosing. Ok, fine. So when I then ask you to instead make a definitive claim about the future course of COVID, both you and muscleman beat around the bush and refuse to do so. You're trying to have it both ways, hence the frustration.

I didn't realize you could see the future! With such a gift, can you confirm if there will be a "third wave" as we emerge flu season, or if COVID has run its course? Please, be definitive.

Rest in peace:

Oh, this is ironic.

So here we are at the start of October, it may be useful to revisit our good ole' excess mortality data. Europe: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps USA: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm Looks like most of Europe has stabilized, with the exception of Spain. USA looks like it has fully passed the second wave and mortality has normalized. So the big question is whether there will be a third wave or whether COVID-19 has run its course...

Sold out of SSD yesterday (wow timing), TFSL today. Sold some NET, AKAM, and a little XOM.

A lot of things happened before 2017 as well. Find the evidence to support your claim, as I mentioned, I have looked but could not.

The vast, vast majority of those leaving CA earn <$50k and do not have a bachelors degree. There is some immigration into CA, these are earning $50k+ and have at least a bachelors. https://next10.org/sites/default/files/california-migration.pdf This above study is only thru 2016 so perhaps there has been a stark change in the past 3-4 years, but I couldn't find a breakdown with demographics (but these are structural forces - immigrants entering and leaving - so I doubt much has changed).

Yes I agree it is very interesting to view results over time in the context of how the country has evolved (they have published the report for 30 years as of now) It would be interesting to overlay these health indicators with COVID-responses from state officials.

Perhaps you both are right - it might help these red states "fail upwards"... I mean, Texas and Florida will need more productive citizens if they ever hope to match NY & CA's national GDP contribution of 22%, up from the relatively paltry 14% that they currently contribute. Further, perhaps states which care for their citizens' health may be a factor in the above GDP contribution. What's the old saying, "Health is wealth" ? UNH State health ranking: https://assets.americashealthrankings.org/app/uploads/ahr_2019annualreport.pdf New york: 11th Cali: 12th Florida: 33rd Texas: 34th