A good example of the kind of document even a sceptical govt policymaker might be won over by 1/
The spinouts alone are fascinating 2/
Fusion in short is a neat manifestation of the sort of industrial strategy it is easier to believe in: not a nailed-on certainty*, but lots of spillover benefits, and they show their workings. 3/
*@PinsonRing is the account to follow for some smart scepticism
(I find the document a pleasant contrast to the clunky cost-benefit, Green Book discussions you can hear: the fluid and multi-pronged nature of industrial impacts when the state gets involved). 4/4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You know I'm not an uncritical fan of the UK government, but the past fortnight has really brought home how ridiculous is any comparison between Johnson's performance and Trump's 1/
Just play side by side the videos after emerging from hospital. Johnson really brought home how dangerous it is
But so much more: even if the PM did shift to economy-concerns early (in retrospect), this is nothing compared to the END LOCKDOWN idiocy we saw over the Atlantic 2/
and while our lot has been accused of hiding behind scientists - well, that's way better than actually *hiding* the scientists. Or promoting false cures. Or dissing masks
Why is the UK gov't so badly rated then? Well lots of valid reasons but.... 3/
This Economist piece is the best summary of the estimated knowledge of Covid so far and is worth showing some highlights economist.com/briefing/2020/… via @TheEconomist
1. We have had million recognised deaths, possibly there are a million more unrecorded 1/
2. We had no idea at the time but the world was probably seeing 1m infections a day at end Jan, a figure that may have peaked at 5m/day early May.
3. Probably 500m-730m have been infected so far, 6-9% of global population
4. The risk of death rises 13% with every year of age.
5. The ratio of official Covid deaths to actual Covid deaths varies. In the States, the likely figure is 30% above the official figure of 200k
Obviously, the reason I ask this question is that a theme is going around some of the Usual Suspects that since there is a FPR of 1%, the rise in cases seen since August is meaningless, we're being panicked into losing our liberties ...1/ coronavirus.data.gov.uk/?_ga=2.1128524…
But even if the people sampled are entirely randomly chosen, the implications of the rise of cases from <1000 to >4000 (from 150k tests) is surely significant - and they are not randomly chosen (unless you think the actual prevalence was practically zero at the end of August) 2/
(in fact, if there have been a steady 1500 people reported as +ve who are -ve who should be cut from the figures, the rise from practically nothing to 2500 in three weeks sounds even more worrying) 3/
How do you decide what to read? Unless you have an infinite reading capacity like @tylercowen (ie see this feedproxy.google.com/~r/marginalrev…) I can't see how one can ever plan a reading schedule that doesn't leave a greater sense of dissatisfaction at what's left unread vs finished 1/
Context: suddenly finished Roosevelt biog and tech history by David Edgerton and wondering what next, and could not feel happy with any choice. My usual categories are: 2/
Worthy, recent-ish, "relevant" books about economy, tech etc. Like the monumental Age of Surveillance waiting for me, or Sapiens, or the infinite number claiming that the tech revolution is either over- or under-hyped. You highlight lots of bits but they're not really fun ...3/
A lot of this discussion of the six-person rule appears wrongly premised on the idea that it defines a safe threshold i.e. "5 people meeting is safe, 7 isn't" or "six people meeting in work is fine, socially it isn't" which naturally inspires a lot of pointless facetiousness 1/
But that is OBVIOUSLY not what they are doing, right? They (HMG) are confronted with a vast collection of behaviours that together add up to a degree of infectiousness, and they are choosing which of them to bear down upon ...2/
... as smarter people than I am have put it: they have a budget, and since they think they are through their budget they are saving a chunk of behaviours, presumably those they deem to be least important economically or in some other wise 3/
As @ianmulheirn has reminded us, a house is a Thing that Provides Housing Services. Take that, discount it - the housing asset is the right to those services - and you have a kinda theory of the price. Obviously, lots of room for speculation... 1/
Then along comes Covid and house is also meaningfully valuable as a Thing that provides Workplace Services. Not all houses are valuable that way, but those that are, rise in value reflecting how the demand to work at home has risen...2/
So houses - or at least some houses - are now more valuable. They've taken some of the value that has fallen out of offices... 3/