peytn

That’s basically Wikipedia minus the most downvoted view part.

It’s obviously a made-up posthumous quote. Nobody who cared about their image (as John Ehrlichman clearly did) was using “blacks” instead of Jesse Jackson’s “African Americans” while talking to journalists in 1994.

Nope. Your experience mirrors mine. They should probably be broken up.

You think a private $50 billion company facing regulatory pressure in several jurisdictions would just do that? Censor things for the government?

No, but you need to be able to ask people who’re “in the know,” e.g.

> When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.”

People already know what the bullshit results are.

> Saying "deal with it" is not at all how I would communicate the issue to the average consumer

Manipulating people isn’t a sustainable solution.

> and such views actually start to impact the uptake

I’m not sure that’s how the chain of causality works. We have 80s-style public health communication that isn’t effective today. People are looking for a reason to reject it. If not the 5G chip stuff, it’d be something else.

You run, but it’s pretty obvious one reason that never happened is because you can use the phrase “best available evidence” to do whatever you want when you control the funding for evidence gathering.

At some point everyone will be vegan ascetics forever apparently. Including all of our descendants, who will recognize and appreciate how enlightened we are. Curiosity and discussion about other solutions cannot be tolerated lest it jeopardize the coming worldwide ascetic veganism forever awakening.

The new business model for magazines like Scientific American seems to be subscription confirmation bias. I’m a former subscriber.

> Not for any known negative reason though.

That statement applies to most medical interventions before testing. If a public health organization thinks they’ll need to mix doses, they should have the foresight to sponsor a trial. It’s very ethically questionable to foist untested interventions on your citizenry.

I think a much deeper analysis would be necessary to say whether this “is a good thing.”

I’d feel a lot more comfortable with this line of reasoning if somebody could put numbers on it. This rhetoric makes sense, but is it rooted in reality?

What’s the expected rate of variant emergence under different scenarios? Can we get it down to near-zero, or are we talking like 30,000 escape variants to 30? Since it only takes one, clearly in the latter case further restrictions and mandates would be futile.

Somebody should be able to run simulations and come up with reasonable estimates.

Google is a legal construct. I can’t go have a coffee with Google. I can’t get a high five from Google. Google will do whatever our laws say it has to do in exchange for liability protections for its owners.

> I spoke to Peter Daszak, president of the EcoHealth Alliance

This guy became a little controversial [1] after a FOIA request turned up emails in which he appears to be conspiring with colleagues to manipulate public perception:

> “you, me and him should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn’t work in a counterproductive way.” Daszak added, “We’ll then put it out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.”

> Baric agreed, writing back, “Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact.”

[1]: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-...

Ah yes, “net price.” Don’t remember my accounting class covering that. What about revenue?

We have public hospitals already. People happily opt out. They’d opt out even harder if there was a tax break.

I think this is more an example of what we call “bullshit.” There’s a lot of it.

Also, like other non-pharmaceutical interventions, they’re currently unregulated.

James Madison figured it was better to leave a few “noxious branches to their luxuriant growth” than to risk “[injuring] the vigor of those yielding the proper fruits.” What makes you think now, 250 years into the most prosperous society in human history, is the right time to revisit this position?

Come on, for a while there we had a “0% ICU capacity” despite empty beds because every COVID patient counted as two people or something [1]. That’s not science.

We did some things right, but the state government really, really is not some bastion of good sense.

[1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/12/29/how-can-california-ha...

Absolutely do not sell your house. Get a cofounder. Nobody’s going to fund a random solo person from a third world country who sells their house instead of using OPM. Like would you fund that person?

> Not helped by how many people are blatantly propagandized into objectively false positions by Fox News & similar.

I dunno, I think that’s confusing cause and effect. The solutions being proposed (e.g. be vegetarian) aren’t what people want. The same goes for lots of problems it seems. In my mind, somebody turning to Fox News et al. is a kind of effect of that.

People aren’t going to suddenly want to become vegetarian if Fox News goes away. There will probably always be somewhere people can listen to talking heads rant about the solutions they feel are being shoved down their throats.

This is called being a sociopath and using mind games to control people around you. Just join a remote-first company if it’s that big a deal to you.

Great. Speaking from first- and second-hand experience, the FDA is way more loosey-goosey than people think as long as you’re paying the right people.

There’s always a debt to the truth. We put the COVID debt on a high-interest credit card to get people locked down and get vaccines out. The balance is due.

> 100°F = 37.78°C (various mentions. This is body temperature so you can not loose heat effectively in this air temperature.)

I think this isn’t quite true due to water’s large enthalpy of vaporization. In dry air the limits are gonna be much higher. Somebody’s probably done the math.

Yeah actually maybe offer a little equity on top of flat fee per interview…

Edit: not that it’s something I’d personally feel comfortable with ethically

The few people I know who’ve moved still “live” there to avoid taking a hit on compensation at review time and just changed their mailing address to a friend’s place or something.

I read the UC San Diego summary. As far as I can tell, their data is from an online poll. It’s well-known that online poll respondents are generally more interested in politics than average. It stands to reason that those considering leaving California may be much less interested in politics and thus undersampled. I didn’t see this potential sampling issue addressed in their write-up, though I’m a layman unfamiliar with the polling methodology they’ve used.