Your point still stands (those people had high contact jobs), but most of the people who died did so prior to vaccine availability. It's only been the past ~4-5 months where there's been widespread availability. And there are very few people at this point (in the US) who haven't gotten the vaccine solely because of their scheduling (though that reason might be cited as a clean justification!). It's clearly vaccine hesitancy...
Easy solution: pay more. Easy to get people to go back if they get paid well enough! At some point, the employer will find enough people to go back to work - and that point is what (economically) the job is worth. A lot of people realized their number is higher than they thought because their alternative was not as bad as they thought.
And to add some more nuance to point 4: there were a LOT of people who could have retired years ago, but chose not to for various reasons. This was their reason. I've seen estimates as high as 2M extra people in the US have just flat out retired due to covid (some left under their own volition, some not - but few of them are coming back). This isn't just old people either - early retirees are a sizeable contingent here.
The other problem is that prices have no relation to quality. The random private university that will saddle you with $250k in debt and no job prospects costs the same as Harvard, which will both give you more aid and give you a foot in the door pretty much anywhere. But the marketing to kids has been all about finding the right "fit" - not finding the school that will actually land them a job for a reasonable value.
And to top that off, career "fit" has been marketed so hard to kids that no one wants to go into specialized trades, which will both almost definitely pay way better and be way more fulfilling than the random inside sales job that they land right out of school
But what about that million people who die every year now? Are the few thousand people who will die because of AI mishaps worth more than the million who die due to human mishaps?
Not to say that we shouldn't be cautious here, but over-caution kills people too
Why not both? It's not safe, but it's better than other options! Why I don't get is why the cat owner can't just flush the irradiated poop? Maybe litter in the pipes isn't good?
There's a good argument to diversify giving type too - as well as diversifying investment. Give some now, give some later. That way, you get the best of both worlds - impact now and greater impact later!
I'd be curious how this number has changed over time. I'd suspect that (as a percentage of overall population) this number is the lowest it's ever been in human history. Still something to continue improving!
Unpaid doesn't always mean that it's the least glamorous (in the absence of compensation for anyone). Take anything on Dirty Jobs, for example. If you're talking the difference between washing laundry and cleaning out septic tanks most people would prefer one over the other in the absence of other pay.
The problem with herd immunity is that the rate differs based on the variant. For something much more transmissible (like the Delta variant), herd immunity numbers are much different than for the original one. There's an argument that the US reached herd immunity on the original one pretty early on in vaccinations. And alpha with current vaccination rates. It's clear we haven't with Delta because numbers are going way up in unvaccinated people.
Cleaning for an airborne illness is just theater. Upgrading air handlers, increasing airflow, and spacing people further apart matter. Cleaning stuff randomly just makes people feel better (but can make good business sense because of this!)
Absolutely. But the paper is talking about a long-term mortality divergence between populations, not a peak in 2017 like you were claiming (and there's nothing about 2020 data in this paper).
Did you read the paper? It effectively has three US data points it's using: deaths in 2000, 2010, and 2017. And it's comparing to European countries in the same time to calculate excess deaths. But they're defining excess deaths as those due to living in the US vs. Europe. Not excess deaths in 2017 vs. 2000 or 2010. This is pointing to structural issues in the US (like healthcare, violence, opioid issues, etc.) causing a long-term mortality rate difference between the US and Europe (it's significantly
worse in 2010 as well as 2017). Not that there was a peak in 2017.
If I'm reading this correctly, this paper is defining excess deaths as the number of people who died in the US who wouldn't have were those people living in Europe instead of the US at that point in time? Which points to structural issues in the US system, but not to some event in 2017 that resulted in extra deaths vs. any surrounding years (just that the death rate in the US has dropped much slower than in Europe over the study timeline 2000-2017).
The US death rate didn't appreciably increase (~3 per 100k) in 2017 vs. 2016[1] and has generally been improving. That's about 10k extra deaths, not 400k, like the paper says (because the paper's usage of that term is very different than The Economist's!)
At this point, isn't non-mask-wearing somewhat similar? The death risk to vaccinated people (for now) is lower than for getting the flu (even with the flu vaccine). So, the risk is only significant to unvaccinated people, who have had plenty of opportunity to get the shot. So the risk here to those people isn't from themselves (like in smoking), but from others - but the risk is their own choice to take?
Is that a bad thing (in the long run)? More people with work experience = more people who are enjoyable at higher rates later on. Maybe a bit of short-term pain, but everyone's better off in the long run?
Diversity doesn't matter in practice if management doesn't want to spend the resources to engineer for diverse use cases. I've been over-ruled too many times when I've pushed for "fringe" use cases - including once with exactly your example of a product not working on Black people (different product, but same ethnicity-based issue). My team intentionally sought out (internal) diversity to test the prototype on. And guess what? When I said this was a big problem and we needed to fix it, I got over-ruled (by my non-White company president) because we were already late shipping the product. (Then product got canned for other reasons later - after I left the company shortly after this decision).
I'm not sure how to fix this broader problem - or what else I could/should have done there (other than leave for greener pastures)!
1) That means those are probably just empty containers at this point due to diffusion. The DDT is already in the environment and has been for decades.
2) Those ones are the dangerous ones right now. And moving them risks massive immediate releases. Making this cleanup process entirely terrible...
3) Yep! And has done so for decades now
On that line of argument, you should use the roadster, not the model s.
The Model T wasn't the first car, but it was the first widely accessible and usable one for the masses. Tesla's innovation is more comparable to that.
That said, Elon should have never been in charge of a public company. He's good at challenging the status quo and should keep doing that in new markets. He's a terrible person to be in charge of an established company (which tesla very much is now!)
I'd guess you're a Gen X from your comment? I'd claim that, for the younger generations (middle millennials and younger), that the very claim that the church has all the answers is the problem itself. They deal in relatives and uncertainty as a general rule and the very assertion that one person (or one group of people) has all the answers is laughable. They appreciate humility and acknowledged uncertainty more than clear answers.
I'd posit that these generations are primarily looking for acceptance, not answers. And they're not getting that acceptance, so they leave. Which was my experience - I started questioning teachings (directly based on my reading of scripture) and had leaders shut down on me entirely and refuse to talk further instead of engaging because it didn't fit in the prescribed "answer" - and this was in a fairly "open-minded" church. I'd come back tomorrow if I could find a church that (most importantly) actually accepted me for me and (secondly) would actually engage in tough topics instead of just giving me hollow "answers" that didn't answer the question (and often conflicted directly with scripture!). I guess what I'm looking for is a church that actually practiced grace and acceptance, answers be damned. That's what Jesus did (see hanging out with tax collectors and prostitutes and preaching a message of love for everyone). Why can't the church do it too?