2) as with many, this one doesn’t bother attempting a cost benefit analysis.
If it did, it would maybe notice that the claimed annual damages from the flu are around $50b.
How about it’s proposed countermeasures?
3) well, US GDP is $20T, so we have 0.2% to play with—0.4% if you double it to include endemic COVID.
Maybe his proposed interventions would halve the risk—back to 0.2%.
That’s the equivalent of missing 1 day per year of work.
4) the proposed interventions include:
A) vaccines. I think the cost of this alone is ~ 1 work day per year.
B) Zoom instead of meetings. Much of our business wouldn’t have happened without in person meetings.
C) staying home if you have a sick housemate (already 1/year)
5)
D) semi-constant mask wearing
…
So his proposed solutions outweigh their claimed benefit by something like 5-10x. What’s up with that?
Well, mostly he never bothered checking the cost vs benefits. If he had, he would have been forced to clean up his post.
6) one thing: I’m skeptical of the quoted cost of $11-90b/year for the flu, and comparable for endemic COVID. I would have guessed higher under his assumptions.
Also, though, people are shockingly willing to permanently sacrifice significant %s of their productivity!
7) and, finally, the article is unimaginative.
It purports to consider the long game, but ignores the possibility—I’d say the _probability_—that COVID-19 won’t be the world’s last pandemic. What happens when we keep layering them on?
8) the moral of the story is: always do the math.
Now, sometimes doing the math won’t tell you what to do—it’ll point out that some of your assumptions were probably wrong! But that’s useful too.
And more generally, if you’re not going to bother, what value is your analysis?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is centered around the observation that, this season, Lamar Jackson has been better on early downs while Justin Herbert has been better on late downs.
Why is this????
3) Sample sizes, mostly.
The sample sizes so far are pretty small -- around 60 3rd down attempts per team. The difference between the Ravens and Chargers completion % is about 14% (35% vs 49%); the standard deviation due to raw luck here is ~40%/sqrt(60)*sqrt(2) ~ 7%
2) so, if all relationships were monogamous and heterosexual, and there were as many women in the world as men, then the effect of “economic pressures” on the ratio of single men to single women…
3) …would be null, because there would by definition be exactly the same number of each. There would be some number of couples, and that would be exactly the number of men and of women in a relationship.
2) We're extremely thankful for the work that the Securities Commission has put into building out a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets--one of the first in the world.
3) Having a comprehensive, nimble regulatory framework with oversight is essential to ensuring that the crypto industry is safe, robust, and growing.
We're excited to be one of the first global crypto exchanges to be part of a comprehensive spot + derivatives regulatory regime.