So if it isn’t ethical to allow the virus to spread, nor is it ethical to lock down your population to stop it, then it’s…
(epistemic status: assuming good faith)
... “test, trace, treat and isolate”?
I’m surprised at these EROI figures: that solar PV is producing energy at very low levalised cost but utterly pathetic EROEI fails the sniff test. A quick scoot through Wikipedia finds a methodological argument (comments on https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544213000492?via%3Dihub).
If you impose a large carbon tax, or other effective global policy of austerity that reduces fossil fuel use without replacing that energy somehow, you're just making the whole world poor
For the case that our civilisation’s energy efficiency is substantially below optimal, see [Factor 4](https://sustainabilitydictionary.com/2006/02/17/factor-4/) (Lovins & Lovins, 1988)
Wearing a mask is vital to preventing Covid-19 infection
I’m wearing a mask because I think they are a reasonable intervention and in the hope that me wearing one encourages other people to wear one. (It sounds like they’re more effective at protecting everyone else than protecting the wearer). I‘m not sure which simulacra level this is (1.1, game theoretic axis?)
estimate the chance of being infected by an infected household member as 30%
Given how contagious this disease seems to be, why is this not higher? Am I misunderstanding what this is measuring? Given you are uninfected, and someone in your household is infected, you have a 1 in 3 chance of contracting Covid?
This may not be entry-level, but Axelrod’s The Evolution of Co-operation might be an enlightening deep/broad dive.
Not sure how relevant this is, but I think it was Lindsay Doe, of Sexplanations, who pointed out how desperately few role models/examples there are of being assertive in negotiating your sexual needs. In fiction it generally happens by authorial fiat. She praised Two Night Stand as a rare exception. You’d think the poly community would have something to say on this. I don’t recall The Ethical Slut having much to say about this.
Fantasy isn’t reality. I’ll happily watch Hugh Laurie playing House, M.D, but I’d like my actual doctor to be a better human (or at least to convincingly pretend to be one)
According to Harvard //www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/if-youve-been-exposed-to-the-coronavirus
We also don't yet know at what point during the course of illness a test becomes positive... you will get a false negative test result [on a swab test] 100% of the time on the day you are exposed to the virus. (There are so few viral particles in your nose or saliva so soon after infection that the test cannot detect them.)... About 40% of the time if you are tested four days after exposure to the virus
So this sounds like, with a smear or swab or saliva test, you’d want to wait up to 4 days after potential exposure, and a false negative remains possible.
I believe I’ve seen elsewhere that the saliva test is comparable to a swab in accuracy, but is more foolproof (because you don’t have to take a sample from your throat).
I think he calls them ”Mediocristan” and “Extremistan” respectively