This is the correct answer to the question. Bell and CHSH and all are remarkable but more complicated setups. This - entanglement no matter which basis you'll end up measuring your particle in, not known at the time of state preparation, - is what's salient about the simple 2-particle setup.
As I've argued previously, a natural selection process maps cleanly onto RL in the limit.
The URL is broken (points to edit page)
Regarding safer assets, when you put your money into a savings account (loan it to the bank), what is the bank to do with it? Presumably it has promised you interest. Or if you buy treasuries - someone must have sold them to you - what do they do now with all the cash? Just because you personally didn't put your money into stocks does't mean nobody else downstream from you did.
And because most securities aren't up for sale at any given time, a small fraction of market participants can have outsized effects on prices. Consider oil back in April: sure the "prices" turned "negative" when a few poor suckers realized they had forgotten to roll their futures to the next month back when everybody else did and could get stuck with a physical delivery, but how many barrels worth of contracts did actually change hands at those prices?
Not sure how this would support the OP's point specifically, but just wanted to point out that 1%-level things can sometimes have large manifestations in "prices", just because liquidity is finite.
Here's a (high) schools data point... https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1266976828549238785?s=19
Regarding HCQ, the recent large-N studies were observational and looks like patients there were given HCQ late and if they were relatively sicker. Using it early on could still work (but now there won't be an RCT for that thanks to numerous delendae).
Regarding schools, did the countries that reopened those already fare particularly worse?
A while back TinyCast seemed pretty friendly: https://tinycast.cultivateforecasts.com/questions/new
That's terrible news! It means that on top of the meager coronavirus there's another unidentified disease overcrowding the hospitals, causing respirator shortages all over the world, and threatening to kill millions of people!
> The idea of “flattening the curve” is the worst, as it assumes a large number of infections AND a large number of virus generation AND high selective pressure
Flattening _per se_ doesn't affect the evolution of the virus much. It doesn't evolve on a time grid, but rather on an event grid where an event is spreading from a person to another. As long as it spreads the same number of times it will have the same number of opportunities to evolve.
"Overreacting to underestimates" - great way of putting it!