Identity is such a complicated thing isn’t it? Find me at https://eapache.github.io or blogging at https://www.grandunifiedcrazy.com
Seems highly unlikely to me, for at least two reasons:
Edit to add: HEPA filters are already widely used in hospital ventilation systems, so I imagine any low-hanging fruit here has already been plucked.
https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/#3.4 was probably in the back of my mind when I asked this question, but I just dug it up again. Lots of great tips in there.
You’ve tested your vitamin D recently and levels were normal or high (as a fat soluble vitamin, it is possible to overdose on)
As somebody who hasn't tested my vitamin D level and doesn't know how (I assume this isn't something you can easily do with standard household materials?) and is worried about the possibility of overdose if I suddenly start supplementing - how should I calibrate on my "likely current vitamin D level" and what level of supplementation is safe?
Generally agree, but I would think that some kind of "new waves" scenario has a much higher than 1% probability given that it's how influenza and many other seasonal viruses continue to circulate. That said, in many "new waves" scenarios we are able to create seasonal vaccines or otherwise mitigate the effects. This may result in a permanent drag on economic growth without reducing growth below 0 (collapse).
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xdwbX9pFEr7Pomaxv/meta-honesty-firming-up-honesty-around-its-edge-cases (also by Eliezer) is closer to what I was actually trying to express.
That seems both correct and desirable to me in certain scenarios? If somebody can help me win more effectively by deceiving me, I would prefer they do that. Especially when the consequences of “not winning” are severe, as in the case of a potentially deadly pandemic.
I also support the general norm to default to truth. But I do believe there are cases where the negative consequences of truth become so severe and immediate that it is reasonable to not do so in favour of winning. The bar for that should be very high, but not unreachable.
To me that post is specifically about self-deception, not about deception of others. I fully agree that once you know a thing, it’s not worth trying to deceive yourself in order for increased winning. But it can still be worth trying to deceive others.
But right now, there is no source we could give an uninformed person and say “all you need to do is listen to them”.
A lot of your arguments are of the form "they're saying something untrue in an effort to get people to do the right thing". So isn't pointing an uninformed person at the CDC the correct thing to do, since we assume that on reading it they'll end up doing the right thing?
Separate from the infohazardness of this post (discussed in other comments and fairly specific to the audience), it seems weird to prefer truth over consequences in what we tell arbitrary uninformed people who have no interest in rationality and just want to know what the best thing to do is?
Tongue half in cheek - play a game like Civilization? https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/civilization/images/e/eb/Tech_Tree_%28Civ6%29.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170301234054