One can certainly defend South Korea and other non-Western countries. And certainly one can defend European countries compared to USA/England or to each other. Definitely one can say that some of them, once Italy happened, did a non-insane job of "shut things down across the board until things get better than try opening them up again" if you think that you have no other policy tools to work with.
I don't think one can defend their performance against the standards of 'did what was likely to actually do the least harm based on physical considerations, and didn't lie about the situation to their public."
I do think that understanding the distinction is vital to understanding our pandemic, including our potential future responses, and therefore what one should do personally. To me this isn't vague FUD, it's predicting that such failures will continue.
Believe me, I am also very bothered that I can produce useful Covid-19 content. And also that these statements seem appropriate. But here we are.
I mean, I assume that would work...
Entirely fair. Nothing done, then.
Yeah, I can see how that is confusing. Will edit.
Added the following to original, mods please reimport or insert it directly at top of section: Pattern is that the percentages in the statements are Scott Alexander's original predictions. When I say I bought, sold or held, that's what I did in the linked-to post.
I don't have that info regarding schools but also no one is systematically collecting data on anything and everything is confounded, including by control systems.
On HCQ, as I noted in the other comment on it, I'm mostly predicting/observing that the scientific community has decided it's going to reject HCQ, preventing it from becoming a consensus treatment. This is partly for 'good' reasons, partly for not-so-good reasons that have nothing to do with science, partly because they no longer know how or are not allowed to study things in ways that would uncover the information.
This is different from the question of what you should do if you or someone you care about gets sick! To which I reply IANAD and for legal and other good reasons, I have no net useful advice for you here.
Happy to do a small wager at 25% odds if we have someone we both trust to hold the money, or you trust me to do so, up to $100 vs. $300, or we can do $1 vs. $3 symbolically with no trust issues. Judgment would be whatever Scott evaluates to in his prediction evaluation.
Note that I agree that it's >10% that there is a worthwhile way to use HCQ as part of a treatment strategy. But that's different from it being the scientific consensus!
For the disclaimer, I would be very, very wary updating from Scott Adams here. He can be insightful, but when he advocates for things that make the administration look good, he'd do that essentially irrespective of truth value. What you're getting is "here's the best case I could make given I already wrote the conclusion at the bottom of the page." So if you do want to update off such things, you need to compare it to how good an argument you expected him to find!
OK, so if true we have one hard example, so presumably it is *possible*. But I also haven't heard of a second one, and also asymptomatic transmission is a thing, etc etc.
It would be weird if we didn't have one case somewhere that has a plausible surface vector even if they were completely safe.
The surface being a person seems important in that example. Reduces the number of steps, if nothing else.
Also worth noting that my gaming posts are only here because LW auto-imports all blog posts from Don't Worry About The Vase (thezvi.wordpress.com). For such matters, doing the discussions there is encouraged.