My understanding is it definitely helps versus not having had them! But that historically the amount burned each year was very, very large, so I'm not sure if we actually better off next year than this year, or only less worse off than we could have been.
In the case of the pause, I wasn't saying that it was time, that day, to give the vaccine to the public. I was saying that they should continue the trial while they investigate the one case, until such time as they actually find a problem linked to the vaccine, so as to not lose time. The downside risk there seems to be almost zero.
The quotes above are all just further "ethicists" who make their prestige and money from expressing concerns and stopping people from doing things, expressing concern and stopping people from doing things, and forcing their procedures on people regardless of whether they make sense. Nothing there is new to me.
As Dagon says, if you think we should use the same speed and standards now that we would use in a non-crisis that wasn't causing massive damage to lives and livelihoods and the entire world, then I don't think that's how trade-offs work and am confused.
I won't get further into the specifics, but I find the arguments raised here both things I've dealt with before, and highly uncompelling.
I'm trying not to overstate the case, but not making too much of an effort - e.g. enough to avoid overstating it if taken out of context. I'm saying more that, it might be enough, we've declined to figure that out along with many other things, and that if it *was* enough that it wouldn't cause behaviors to change.
Who said I was a utilitarian? I am saying that I have a clear preference order, and one candidate is above the other (and also prefer a clear and accepted victory to a disputed one, no matter who wins).
Its above refers to Trump's administration in that sentence, yes.
I haven't seen a game in this genre I'd put into Tier 1, but haven't played too extensively in the genre. Papers, Please has the best reputation. I tried to play once and got frustrated before getting to the part where it's interesting.
Yeah, that's still somewhat confusing, but makes it clear that they mean the election. I'll edit to reflect that.
(I've now edited the original, mods please update - I gotta go and now is not a good time for me to learn how to properly paste the HTML or what not)
This has been fixed/updated, please reimport.
Interesting question. An experiment off top of head.
Level 1: "Please pass the potatoes" because you want potatoes.
Level 2: "Please pass the potatoes" because I want you to think you make good potatoes.
Level 3: "Please pass the potatoes" because I want to fit in with the potato-eating group.
Level 4: "Please pass the potatoes" because I can see there are no potatoes and this will lower the status of the people who didn't make enough potatoes or raise the status of those whose potatoes are in high demand, or cause a fight over who ate too many, or whatever.
I agree the housing market is deeply broken in many places, but would explain this purely in supply and demand terms. There is large demand, and laws severely restrict supply. Thus, prices go up. We expect additional restrictions on supply, so prices are expected to go up more, so they go up now, expectations set in, and so on. Then in part to protect those expectations, restrictions are increased.
If we ban/tax renting that won't solve the problem, that will force renters to buy instead, and destroy the ability of the poor (who don't hit a lottery where they're given a house for free) to find places to live even more than we already do. This is already happening of course. Rent control is known to be the best way to destroy a city's housing stock short of aerial bombing - and eviction bans are the most extreme form of rent control.
The solution is obvious. Get rid of the restrictions on building more housing and on how one rents out housing, and supply will increase, as will expected future supply, driving prices down to not much more than cost of construction. To help more, also work to make us able to build things cheaper.
(OK, tagging out on further discussions here to avoid getting into politics and things that have nothing to do with Covid-19)