All of Zvi's Comments + Replies

Omicron Variant Post #1: We’re F***ed, It’s Never Over

If they had promoted restrictions I'd have bought supplies.

It's more like, oh, there's enough people trying to do something useful that they're warning them not to, oh no. But also I did notice I shouldn't have updated!

Omicron Variant Post #1: We’re F***ed, It’s Never Over

Presumably we still should have shifted everything over anyway, it's a freeroll that can only help?

6ChristianKl14hAnnouncing it might have meant that people who wait to get vaccinated till the new version arrives get better protection which is a message that the people at the CDC hate to tell people. That might be enough to push the institutions into a state where they won't develop a slightly better vaccine that doesn't add much when it might make people more skeptical of taking the current one?
6evhub1dYes, at least that's also my understanding—especially since we are still vaccinating new people, not just giving out boosters. My point is just that it seems like we shouldn't rely on updated vaccines being able to change the course of the pandemic in a major way.
Omicron Variant Post #1: We’re F***ed, It’s Never Over

I have to assume the 11 day delay is unusual, or even that perhaps that case didn't actually come from Egypt. If it usually took 11 days then there's no way it grows this fast (and if it still does, seriously, it's time to give up.)

5dawangy1d11 days could be unusual based on the Hong Kong report: https://www.news.gov.hk/eng/2021/11/20211123/20211123_102145_582.html?type=category&name=covid19&tl=t [https://www.news.gov.hk/eng/2021/11/20211123/20211123_102145_582.html?type=category&name=covid19&tl=t] Based on the report it seems that someone arriving Nov 11 had enough virus to test positive by Nov 13, and the person he infected had enough virus to test positive on Nov 18. Both were sent to the hospital but it is unclear whether this was part of a standard procedure or if they were ill enough to need to go.
Paxlovid Remains Illegal: 11/24 Update

Note: I was moving quickly, and did the wrong calculation for the lower bound earlier. It is now 5k rather than 20k. 

Paxlovid Remains Illegal: 11/24 Update

Um, I was assuming everyone would understand that this wasn't correct? Are we so fargone I can't do this?

Paxlovid Remains Illegal: 11/24 Update

Pretty sure I directly addressed this, as did Eliezer in his thread (and there's at least one more explanation I didn't mention, which is that you can target the vulnerable over time instead of giving it to everyone if you're short). Also pretty sure this isn't true even if you accept the premise.

5Gurkenglas3dThe direct address being earlier approval causing more production ramp-up, I'm guessing. The point in parentheses is a good one, though the Other could reply that the resulting murders are a lot fewer when you assume triage in both scenarios. If we can, say, treat a million people out of 10 million cases, 8 million of which are in the next year, then with late approval we can only treat the most at-risk of the latter 8 million, while with early approval we can treat the most at-risk of 10 million. That's 200000 treatments used on the 90-100 percentile risk bracket instead of the 87.5-90 percentile risk bracket.
Paxlovid Remains Illegal: 11/24 Update

I asked mods (well, emailed Oliver about) how to make the footnotes work right - they're good on Substack but broken in WP and LW then imports from WP. Growing pains of switching to the SS editor, whereas the WP editor didn't have footnotes worth using at all. 

Covid 11/18: Paxlovid Remains Illegal
  1. This requires (A) Covid-19 will remain a serious threat long enough for (B) kids to grow up while Covid-19 is still in a form where 'natural immunity' would remain importantly helpful but (C) the vaccine held up long enough that they didn't get infected, if they do get infected they're better off being vaccinated first and (D) the vaccine protection then after that goes away. That seems like an insane parlay.
  2. The risks of the vaccine remain trivial by comparison even for children.
  3. The social benefits of child vaccinations, including letting people act less crazy both in general and around this particular child, are large. 
Covid 11/18: Paxlovid Remains Illegal

Sadly I do think that this needs to be a costly signal.

Covid 11/18: Paxlovid Remains Illegal

Part of it is Choices are bad, especially false ones. You're making people pretend you're not forcing them to do it, which makes them feel bad about choosing to do it and agonize about the 'decisions' being made and what's been lost.

Part of it is legitimate vs. illegitimate authority, and clarity of what is going on. You're not taking ownership and responsibility, and you're gaslighting everyone about what's going on, and also you're telling everyone implicitly that you lack the power to demand vaccinations (else why not demand them?) but you're turning ar... (read more)

1siclabomines7dOn the other hand, those lockdowns may only last until the cases start going down again, but you can't get unvaccinated.
3tkpwaeub8dI love this explanation. Thank you!!! Also, now that you're back in NYC we should get lunch sometime. Anyway, Austria must be reading your stuff - they're doing a straight up mandate starting February 1 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/world/europe/covid-austria-lockdown.html [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/world/europe/covid-austria-lockdown.html]
Covid 11/18: Paxlovid Remains Illegal

Thanks! It's useful to know where concretely people are getting value out of the posts, and also it's nice to hear. 

I don't think a norm of more often saying 'here's why I did my strong upvote/downvote' or otherwise treating karma as super important is a good idea (e.g. I disagree with Duncan rather strongly but haven't had the bandwidth to respond properly) but specific feedback on what matters is great.

6Yoav Ravid8dI would be very interested to read what you have to say on the matter (karma and your disagreement with Duncan)
4supposedlyfun8dThat's interesting to hear re Duncan. I hope you get the time to publish your views. My original plan was to comment every fourth strong upvote, but then I thought you might get some value out of my comment. I'm glad you did.
Attempted Gears Analysis of AGI Intervention Discussion With Eliezer

I want to be clear that my inside view is based on less knowledge and less time thinking carefully, and thus has less and less accurate gears, than I would like or than I expect to be true of many others' here's models (e.g. Eliezer). 

Unpacking my reasoning fully isn't something I can do in a reply, but if I had to say a few more words, I'd say it's related to the idea that the AGI will use qualitatively different methods and reasoning, and not thinking that current methods can get there, and that we're getting our progress out of figuring out how to ... (read more)

1Joachim Bartosik11dI have only a very vague idea what are different reasoning ways (vaguely related to “fast and effortless “ vs “slow and effortful in humans? I don’t know how that translates into what’s actually going on (rather than how it feels to me)). Thank you for pointing me to a thing I’d like to understand better.
2lsusr12dI agree that GPT-3 sounds like a person on autopilot.
Attempted Gears Analysis of AGI Intervention Discussion With Eliezer

On slowing down, I'd say strong inside view agreement, I don't see a way either, not without something far more universal. There's too many next competitors. Could have been included, probably excluded due to seeming like it followed from other points and was thus too obvious.

On the likelihood of backfire, strong inside view agreement. Not sure why that point didn't make it into the post, but consider this an unofficial extra point (43?), of something like (paraphrase, attempt 1) "Making the public broadly aware of and afraid of these scenarios is likely to backfire and result in counterproductive action."

5Grant Demaree12dWhat particular counterproductive actions by the public are we hoping to avoid?
1Oleg S.12dOn the object level it looks like there are a spectrum of society-level interventions starting from "incentivizing research that wouldn't be published" (which is supported by Eliezer) and all the way to "scaring the hell out of general public" and beyond. For example, I can think of removing $FB and $NVDA from ESGs, disincentivizing publishing code and research articles in AI, introducing regulation of compute-producing industry. Where do you think the line should be drawn between reasonable interventions and ones that are most likely to backfire? On the meta level, the whole AGI foom management/alignment starts not some abstract 50 years in the future, but right now, with the managing of ML/AI research by humans. Do you know of any practical results produced by alignment research community that can be used right now to manage societal backfire / align incentives?
Attempted Gears Analysis of AGI Intervention Discussion With Eliezer

Right, so it didn't come completely out of nowhere, but it still seems uncharitable at best to go from 'mostly fake or pointless or predictable' where mostly is clearly modifying the collective OR statement, to 'almost everyone else is faking it.' 

EDIT: Looks like there's now a comment apologizing for, among other things, exactly this change.  

It also seems uncharitable to go from (A) "exaggerated one of the claims in the OP" to (B) "made up the term 'fake' as an incorrect approximation of the true claim, which was not about fakeness".

You didn't literally explicitly say (B), but when you write stuff like

The term ‘faking’ here is turning a claim of ‘approaches that are being taken mostly have epsilon probability of creating meaningful progress’ to a social claim about the good faith of those doing said research, and then interpreted as a social attack, and then therefore as an argument from autho

... (read more)
An Unexpected Victory: Container Stacking at the Port of Long Beach

Flagging here my having-slept-on-it update policy going forward for this particular post:

  1. If there's a factual error anywhere, or a grammar/typo problem, I will continue to fix this particular post. If I say X happened and it didn't, I should fix it, and I should fix technical mistakes.
  2. If there's an impression problem, where it's felt this gives the impression that I'm claiming the change did more to solve the logjam than it did, or that we should be a certain level of excited, or something similar, nope, not going to change this post further for that, this
... (read more)
Covid 11/11: Winter and Effective Treatments Are Coming

Looks like they managed to get a 97% vaccination rate, but found that not good enough, so they abandoned the mandate and permanently sacrificed everyone's credibility but especially their own, whereas places without a mandate usually end up far lower. So the news here is that Quebec defected and burned the commons?

1The Scary Black Hundreder11dEven assuming we live in a world where there is a reasonable hope of eradicating covid with the vaccines that we have, it still wouldn't be enough to simply rely on a gentleman's agreement for various parties to implement mandates. Different parties have different incentives, and even dictatorships have to spend political capital to impose policy. And if the imposed policy turns out to be much less effective than promised, there is even less political capital to impose the next policy.
1cistrane13dPlus the 3% of holdouts (14 thousand in absolute numbers) are critically important , apparently they cannot afford to lose anyone at all. Which is very strange. There are less than 9 million people in Quebec and according to their numbers, 420 thousand are employed in healthcare which is 10% of their employed population.
An Unexpected Victory: Container Stacking at the Port of Long Beach

After talking to Elizabeth, and based on new information I've learned since this was posted, I've updated the OP to reflect what we've learned and avoid giving anyone the impression this change had a bigger impact than I believe that it did. The central points remain unchanged.

There were enough different changes that I'd like mods to reimport to ensure both copies reflect the same changes. 

I greatly appreciate the time Zvi put into talking to me and that he updated the post. For posterity, I would like to note that this covers ~30% of the change I wanted. In particular, I've gone from feeling confident Zvi's estimate of the impact of the change was that it was sufficient to clear the problem, to not knowing what he thinks the estimate is, aside from >0 (which I medium-confidence disagree with, but that's a different issue). This may or may not be because the information isn't there: it could also be that it's there but I didn't read caref... (read more)

3Zvi15dFlagging here my having-slept-on-it update policy going forward for this particular post: 1. If there's a factual error anywhere, or a grammar/typo problem, I will continue to fix this particular post. If I say X happened and it didn't, I should fix it, and I should fix technical mistakes. 2. If there's an impression problem, where it's felt this gives the impression that I'm claiming the change did more to solve the logjam than it did, or that we should be a certain level of excited, or something similar, nope, not going to change this post further for that, this is as far as I'm willing to go. 3. If there's additional new information that seems relevant, beyond what I added this time, that's a thing to be fixed with additional posts, and if they get written I will modify this particular post to link to those new posts, but not to directly reflect new information, again unless it causes a factual error as per #1. Flagging the update policy I have in general as well: 1. If the post is timeless - as in, being used permanently as a link by myself or others on a regular basis, and continuing to get readers, or about to go into the yearly review, or something - and there's a factual error, I'll fix it. 2. If the post isn't timeless - it's a weekly Covid post, or didn't become much of a thing, or whatever - then I'll fix errors within about a week, and otherwise consider myself free to not worry about it and move on, to avoid creating an undue burden. 3. Anything beyond fixing factual errors in posts that don't get special attention/hits is entirely optional and requires exceptional circumstances for that to change. Typos and grammar errors and such will be fixed when it seems worth it, otherwise not.
Covid 11/11: Winter and Effective Treatments Are Coming

On the effectiveness question, I think 64% and 97% are hugely different numbers - they are an order of magnitude difference in remaining risk. So a CI that wide to me very much screams not enough data in terms of deciding how to act. I expect tons of expensive prevention efforts to be justified by that 64% number, that would be much harder to justify if we could be confident in 89%, and if it was known to be 97% would be much harder still.

On treatment versus prophylaxis, yes I understand that, but treatment and prophylaxis can be either complements or substitutes depending on the situation - if you have a good enough treatment it makes it less important to do prophylaxis (and vice versa). 

Covid 11/11: Winter and Effective Treatments Are Coming

I meant to edit it to note that I was skipping the section, or remove the section, and forgot to do so.

Substack Ho?

I think you can self-host WP in a pinch as well. I've been chatting with someone from WP trying to better understand what it is offering. It does seem like I'm missing a lot of simple knowledge of how to use WP better, and it's possible that WP is 'good enough' if things were explained properly, and then there's a bunch of deep functionality and customization potentially hidden. Yet that doesn't do any good if I don't use it. 

2Said Achmiz17dI have self-hosted WordPress and can confirm that it is possible (and not even very hard). The big downside is security (but you can mitigate this substantially by using a managed host such as NearlyFreeSpeech.NET [https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/], and hosting only your WordPress blog on the site in question).
Substack Ho?

Strong upvoting after our conversation so more people see it. Raymond made a strong case, I'm seriously considering it and would like everyone else's take on Ghost, good or bad. Getting the experiences of others who've used it, and can verify that it works and can be trusted (or not, which would be even more useful if true!), would be very helpful.

The basic downside versus Substack is lack of Substack's discovery, such as it is, not sure of magnitude of that, and that people won't be used to it and won't have already entered CC info, which will hurt revenu... (read more)

2Pattern17dIs 'can be self-hosted in a pinch' also a feature of Wordpress? Also, how does Ghost and WordPress stack up against 'has anyone ever self-hosted?' (More people doing that, might make it easier to find out how.)
Substack Ho?

Thank you for being up front. My basic answer is that I'm vaguely aware Ghost exists, and I'd be open to a pitch/discussion to try and convince me it's superior to Substack or Wordpress, although it would be an uphill battle. If there's human support willing to make the migration and setup easy and help me figure out how to do things, then... maybe? Could set up a call to discuss.

1Raymond D18dMigration - they have a team that will just do it for you if you're on the annual plan, plus there's an exporting plugin (https://ghost.org/docs/migration/wordpress/) Setup - yeah there are a bunch of people who can help with this and I am one of them I'll message you
Paths Forward: Scaling the Sharing of Information and Solutions

I'm not worried about you administering the bounty, that seems fine and good and I'd trust you to honestly evaluate the bet at the size range I'd expect it to be. If it was big enough to be 'real money' we'd need to use better procedures but I'm assuming that's not the case here.

I'd also note that if I was provided a 'bounty fund' I would at least experiment with using it more generally. Might be a good idea.

If you propose a bet, then I might or might not accept depending on odds, size and terms, I don't feel it is necessary but have no objection.

There are... (read more)

5Elizabeth22dNote: have emailed Zvi + Eli Tyre to arrange double cruxing out of band.
Paths Forward: Scaling the Sharing of Information and Solutions

It's what's called a hold-up problem. LA+LB together are 40% of shipping, so they have a ton of pricing power even medium-term, and short-term they can effectively take more than all of your profits because the alternative is even worse. The cities could extract a substantial percentage of the value of international shipping, but the deadweight loss triangle involved would be gigantic, and the cost pass-through might destabilize the entire economy if they got too aggressive. Yes, you want to do enough of this to allocate via price, but there's the temptati... (read more)

Paths Forward: Scaling the Sharing of Information and Solutions

To address the question of the backlog, if I wasn't clear, I too was unable to find good evidence of the number of ships waiting and how that changed from day to day. I did see claims it had improved somewhat but it's all confused. 

I tried to make it clear here that I am confident it was, in that previous comment's terms, 'a first step' and did at least some good, but that I'm not confident on magnitude. Which, as again I tried to say, I still think is good enough.

I am confused why you think this is good enough, and would like to understand why.  I look at the situation and see several extremely important cruxes that are not yet satisfied. I've specified some of those cruxes above, albeit not super rigorously and I can't promise they're exhaustive.

I think I get the failure mode you're worried about here- that comments like mine will raise the friction of doing anything so high that nothing is even attempted, and it's more important to try more things and learn from them than to nail down any particular one. The... (read more)

Paths Forward: Scaling the Sharing of Information and Solutions

If I gave the impression that I don't support additional learning and investigation then I apologize. That was most certainly not my intention. It was more that my default model of what happens is 'some analysis then basically nothing' and that seems like the most likely failure mode in worlds where making this work is feasible.

Covid 10/28: An Unexpected Victory

Don't worry about the vase, my blog's name.

1tkpwaeub23dLol, at first I wondered why you were telling me not to worry about the vase
Covid 10/28: An Unexpected Victory

I acknowledge you are 'simply asking questions' and want to do the math calculation. What I'm saying is that a live example of seriously claiming (2) is sufficient to show that we have to worry about an attempt to actually implement it. If Public Health people start considering the 'costs and benefits' of an intervention - especially one that could be framed as a default right now - that makes lives worse in exchange for less disease, you've already lost, and the idea that costs of mask wearing are sufficiently low that we need to be doing math is the road... (read more)

1TheSimplestExplanation18dTo be fair, he didn't ask for Public Health people to consider it.
2philh1moI am extremely sympathetic to the thing you're saying in this comment. (I'm not sure I straight-up believe it, but then I basically don't hang out with kids and don't remember what it was like to be one.) But... I kind of want to note here that this is not what you've been saying so far, at least not in this part of the conversation. It might be what you've been meaning. But what you said, from my read of the conversation, was... In the post, that James (or at least someone) said (1). Then in your reply to James, that James was continuing to say (2). And that you were confused why James saying "I said (2), not (1)" made James a bad example (of unspecified; by inference, of him saying (1)).
Covid 10/28: An Unexpected Victory

I don't know anyone who did either of those things to my knowledge, no. 

Covid 10/28: An Unexpected Victory

None of those possibilities were things I hadn't considered, nor do they explain the data. I continue to not understand.

1CraigMichael1moI don’t know about your family history, but my guess is Dune speaks more to people who didn’t have good male role models/mentoring/parenting (e.g., involved fathers) for large parts of their life. Paul learns a bit from his father before he dies, but more from Gurney, Stilgar, Liet-Kynes, etc. Paul is 15 when his father dies, which makes him a half-orphan/paternal-orphan. Orphans have interesting and complex roles in fiction: https://youtu.be/mnbeC6g3Ugo [https://youtu.be/mnbeC6g3Ugo] Dune feels more genuine than other orphan stories. Paul’s arc is meaningful to me because he succeeds in filling in the gaps and then excelling beyond what would be expected.
Covid 10/28: An Unexpected Victory

This sounds exactly like you're continuing to say that we should consider permanently forcing children to mask, so I'm confused why it's not a good example.

6James_Miller1moI think we are talking past each other. Consider: (1) we should do X. (2) we should gather more information to decide if we should do X. I'm claiming (2). I interpreted your writing "Even a LessWrong commenter of mine explicitly endorsed the idea that asks were worth having in school to prevent other diseases, and not letting kids breathe or see faces should be normalized permanently. " as saying I support (1). If I support (1) than I need to have a lot of information about the costs and benefits of X which I don't have so my supporting (1) would imply that I'm foolish. You are right that I think we should "consider" permanently forcing children to mask, as this is consistent with (2).
Covid 10/28: An Unexpected Victory

Removed (btw: If you're giving me a comment like this, best place is at DWATV, no need to post it twice). 

1tkpwaeub1moWhat does DWATV stand for?
Covid 10/28: An Unexpected Victory

You're not preaching, you're noticing you are confused. Which is good. 

I am not confused here, because the media is running stories about kids ending up in the ICU and most people don't think about base rates, so it's unsurprising that many parents think like this. Also see satanic child abuse cults, or stranger danger, or poisoned Halloween candy, etc etc. 

2dpandey1moYou're right. I think this is shocking me because it affects so many people I know and generally expect to be more calibrated in their beliefs, and the all-too-common handwaving of "we don't know enough about COVID" is not a free pass to be overcautious. That is, people I expect better from are overestimating the risk of the virus to a similar degree that anti-vaxxers are underestimating the risk of the virus/overestimating the risks of the vaccine, which is genuinely dangerous. Mixed messaging from the CDC and news establishments isn't helping either.
An Unexpected Victory: Container Stacking at the Port of Long Beach

It does seem like problems need to at least approach the level of 'this is worth solving for me simply to get my private benefits' in order to get solved, but I also think that the fruit is often low hanging enough that this is fine?

Covid 10/28: An Unexpected Victory

My presumption is that the reasons people liked Dune Part 1 require things that I have not experienced. So I hope to retroactively change my opinion after Part 2. But for now, that's my reaction, I'm confused why this is a thing.

2Pattern1moDo you know a lot of people who read it in quarantine, or because of the movie? (I also made another comment on this, but whether or not that has an effect, and makes up a large amount of the audience seems like the biggest factor. Unless it was people watching it in theaters and just super excited about that, especially for social reasons, what with Covid.)
Covid 10/21: Rogan vs. Gupta

This feels like the kind of thing I could do more of if it were high value, in other contexts, but it requires a lot of time. Certainly would be happy to do it paid. 

Covid 10/21: Rogan vs. Gupta

There's a ton of stuff here so I can't take time to properly respond to it all, but I did want to note (I've talked about this before) my intuition pump around the data suppression question, and why I think it's hugely unlikely there are much more common serious side effects.

Which is that there are tons of people both pro and anti vaccine who are actively on the prowl for such effects. If we catch even a whiff of anything, no matter how statistically irrelevant, it endangers the ability to use the vaccines at all - see J&J, and see the Moderna suspensi... (read more)

Covid 10/21: Rogan vs. Gupta

Discussion in question was about whether to get vaccinated rather than whether to mandate vaccination. 

Also, we effectively totally mandate treatments all the time, the force of 'doctor insists you do this' in many spots is 'I'll physically do it without asking permission' and in many others it's 'we will refuse you any other care until you do this.' In ways I find pretty terrible, mind you, but worth noting this.

Covid 10/7: Steady as She Goes

Wow, thank you for pointing me at this. That's... a pretty crazy error. It's sufficiently bad that I feel like it's an error that I didn't catch it, rather than mostly being on them. Damn.

Covid 10/7: Steady as She Goes

Right, I get that, but this is saying that with the death robots you fend off the attack 97% of the time, but without the death robots you also fend off the attack 97% of the time, so there were no cases where not having the death robots ready to go mattered, you always either had enough time without the robots OR the robots wouldn't have been enough anyway, and I'm kinda huh?

2gwillen2moOne thing that occurred to me is that the difference might be smaller than it looks. "Infected" really means "infected enough that it spreads to the nasal mucosa, OR spraying enough virus from the lungs to leave some lying around there, so that we can catch it on a swab." In reality, "infection" is probably not a sharp line the way we try to draw it; the sharp line is "infected enough that we can see it." Separate from that, this also seems to line up somewhat with my understanding about antibodies vs T-cells -- that antibodies respond faster but also fade faster, and so the results we see would be consistent with T-cell immunity being ~perfect, antibody immunity fading with time, and a 3% rate of nonresponse to the vaccine which doesn't successfully produce either kind of immunity. This model would seem to imply that antibodies are redundant, if T-cells always catch things that slip through. I could imagine some explanations for that: perhaps covid is unusual in that; or perhaps the extra evolutionary benefit of being sick for less time is sufficient to "pay for it"; or the benefit of reducing the rate of passing diseases on to close relatives.
8Steven Byrnes2moUm, maybe 3% of the time the defense deathbots have a design defect, and then it doesn't matter whether they're ready earlier vs later??? But yeah OK I get where you're coming from now. (Not an expert.)
5Eliezer Yudkowsky2moLol.
Covid 10/7: Steady as She Goes

I think these people are insane - or rather, the decision is insane and so are the incentives that are in place around such decisions. And having done this will doubtless backfire in various ways. 

1Kamil Pabis2moAs far as I can tell, if they suspend one of two available mRNA vaccines this is bound to have zero effect on vaccination rates in the young because the other one can fill the gap.
Covid 9/23: There Is a War

Good catch. Looks like the overrule is on the narrow frontline issue and she's going to align with the FDA.

Would have been great if she'd gone for the correct answer, but at least now we know where we're at.

1tkpwaeub2moI mean, it kinda makes sense for Walensky to be able to overrule ACIP if you think of the latter as quasi-legislative. Then Walensky would get to overrule anything short of a 2/3 majority.
Covid 9/23: There Is a War

I'd say that even if doctors are not competent we still don't need an FDA that bans things, at most we need an FDA that evaluates strength of evidence for safety and efficacy and which competes with private firms doing the same.

Covid 9/23: There Is a War

My heuristic for this at this point (without going into the evidence I'm using): Natural infection counts as something like +2 vaccine doses. So if you're infected but not vaccinated it's as good or somewhat better than 2-dose mRNA, and if you're vaccinated plus infected you're effectively immune. 

The issue, as I've mentioned, is that a lot of people are wrong about whether they've been infected, in both directions, or would claim it if it was helpful, so it's hard to use it as a criteria officially. On a personal level, yeah, big game.

4TropicalFruit2moMy employer is being flexible and has agreed to accept proof of past exposure and anti body response. I’m writing up a page or so to explain the protective nature of nature immunity, and I’m asking around places like here to try to get my facts straight. Requiring anti body testing as an alternative to vaccine passport at least helps restore a little liberty without sacrificing safety.
1tkpwaeub2moCan you write something up about AstraZeneca's prophylactic monoclonal antibody shots that they're working on?
Covid 9/17: Done Biden His Time

Does this mean I need to always use snipping tool rather than copy image, or will that somehow also not work? 

2gwillen2moI don't know, sorry -- I am not that familiar with the tools for composing LW posts. But hopefully this information will help someone from LW tell you the right thing to do? All I know is, if you can get the image hosted by LW and not by Twitter, it will fix the problem.
Covid 9/17: Done Biden His Time

I'm not the one who maintains the sequence, I forget who does do it but the mods should be able to add this one. Likely issue is that this came out on a Friday.

Load More