gridlockd

Sure, but what sort of concern? A "shut down everything, COVID-cases are rising!" sort of concern?

In general, we can say that in the overwhelming majority of cases, hospitals did not get overwhelmed with COVID patients like some of the models predicted. That may change as we move into the second winter season, but it's not a foregone conclusion.

Two observations: First, this happened despite all precautions. Secondly, extended families can be hundreds of people, including many elderly. Lastly, in a large-enough population you will inevitably find clusters that are more affected by some illness than the average person. That's why you need to observe solid data, not a media spectacle, to come to rational conclusions.

We need to ask ourselves, how much suffering can younger generations be expected to endure to make the older generations live statistically a bit longer? Remember, the average COVID death is in their eighties, which is already beyond life expectancy.

Even if we doubled yearly increases in ppm we'd be a century away from a measurable impact on human cognition for outdoor air.

"The evidence is admittedly incomplete for all the steps in COVID-19 microdroplet transmission, but it is similarly incomplete for the large droplet and fomite modes of transmission. The airborne transmission mechanism operates in parallel with the large droplet and fomite routes [16] that are now the basis of guidance."

By using arbitrarily high standards for evidence, I might as well claim there's no evidence that COVID is transmitted by large droplets or by smear infection. Where's the randomized trial that proves beyond any doubt that coughing in each other's faces will spread COVID?

The source is for the "if not majority" part of that sentence. The other part is just me making an admittedly unsubstantiated claim.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/04/health/239-experts-with-o...

> I know somehow on HN linking to a paper is seen as a mic-drop, but that is not the case in the real world.

Sure, but this is HN. You often have to source stuff just to not get downvoted.

At this point, it's expert consensus that airborne transmission of COVID is a significant if not the major route of transmission[1].

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14857

> If it was airborne, those cloth and surgical masks that people wear would be useless, so you might as well not wear them.

Not quite useless, but nowhere near as effective as people would like to believe them to be.

I'm not saying that this could never possibly happen, but it's not much of a real threat exactly because effort vs reward is unfavorable.

A terrorist on the other hand would probably be dissatisfied with the not-quite-catastophic outcome. If you want to cause real havoc, there are far more valuable targets to hack into.

Of course, with new contracts being negotiated, not having to pay for all these expenses will give an employer more leeway in terms of salary. However, remote work also increases the candidate pool, so the net effect is going to be lower salaries.

In fact, casualties of war, as a percentage of population, have been more or less constant for hundreds of years.

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/23/8832311/war-casualties-600-yea...

Perhaps the rules have changed now, due to mutually assured destruction.

I have come to the conclusion that managing our collective delusions is more important than correcting them. Reality is unbearable to the human psyche. Most collective delusions are benign or even beneficial to society.

Fortunately, there has been worldwide expert consensus on all of these things since day 1 of the pandemic, so YouTube does not find itself in the difficult position of acting as the arbiter of truth.

Also, significant reduction in mortality using HCQ alone early during the treatment has been reproduced:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.09.20184143v...

The earlier trials weren't testing prophylactic treatment.

I agree. Like Slavoj but without the Zizek.

> He gave a rambling answer about we need to pay all the human involved in producing that model (even those that are consumed as opensource models) and that AI is fundamentally anti-human.

I do think this raises a very valid point in terms of intellectual property. If I train an AI to paint in the style of an artist whose art I scraped, does that artist have any claim as to its licensing? If not, should they not?

My comment is getting heavily downvoted, despite being properly sourced. No counter-argument or evidence is presented.

Why? Does nobody care to explain themselves?

I disagree.

Source: dude, trust me.

Having said that, giving somebody "experimental treatment" and "knowing what one is doing" is contradictory. According to Trump, he asked for the experimental antibody therapy himself. As his doctor, you then have the choice of playing the odds or putting "got fired by Trump" on your resume.

The original treatment protocol included zinc, so it's nonsense to say that adding in zinc is "moving the goalpost". Not testing in combination with zinc is moving the goalpost. The interaction between zinc and HCQ is key. Azithromycin is just to prevent potential secondary bacterial infection, which isn't necessarily a big factor in COVID mortality.

"This is special pleading, and it is not backed up by any hard data."

Here's a study that showed adding zinc to HCQ reduced mortality by 50%:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32930657/

Unfortunately, that study didn't test zinc without HCQ, but the hypothesis is that HCQ acts as an ionophore and is therefore beneficial.

Rationale:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698772...

Trial:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32930657/

That's unfortunate, because as awful as bash may be, a shell that works natively on all three systems would be far more valuable. Python has all that platform abstraction already built-in.

There is the provision that a common carrier must not discriminate[1]. In return, the common carrier is absolved of certain liabilities.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier

I'm not saying Facebook is (or should be) considered a common carrier, I'm saying Facebook shouldn't get to have it both ways, as it currently does. The law hasn't quite caught up here yet.