3 ms·

If I recall correctly, this is the same man who said: 'I’m not a medical professional, so I can’t speak much to medical solutions.' and in spite of this, proc

by lkey 5y ago

If I recall correctly, this is the same man who said: 'I’m not a medical professional, so I can’t speak much to medical solutions.' and in spite of this, proceeded to suggest we intentionally infect people at the outset of the coronavirus. Claiming, falsely: 'As of yesterday total known deaths were 1384, a number that’s had a six day doubling time lately. At that rate, in four months deaths go up by a factor of a million, which is basically the whole planet. So unless growth rates slow by over a factor of four, there’s probably not time for a vaccine to save us.' You'll have to forgive me if I don't take any of his claims about the future organization of society seriously, as he seems to lack something critical ever time he tries to imagine how people other than him might behave. Also this: 'To me as a youth, I think the theory that many men want to have sex with men looked like a conspiracy theory: implausible, with no direct evidence shown, & the sort of thing people would want to claim even if not true. I now believe, though I've never seen very direct evidence.' Truly a bizarre way to conceptualize the world.

tlholaday 5y ago
> Truly a bizarre way to conceptualize the world. If familiarity is what you seek, look for echo chambers.
- lkey 5y ago
  Pithy, but I can't think of anything more pointless than seeking out a solipsist and trying to convince them I exist. Seeking contrary opinions for their own sake is not virtuous. Seeking out "heterodox opinions" from people with an established track record of being misinformed on a topic is downright foolish.
Matticus_Rex 5y ago
The numbers on variolation (the intentional infection he was talking about) still look like a pretty clear net positive. Were variolation trials not so legally problematic, they would likely have saved many, many lives, because as Hanson pointed out very early on the amount of exposure seems to be one of the larger factors in disease severity with COVID-19 (which was very predictable). And for most of his futarchy claims, he's relying directly on fairly good evidence. That's not a good reason to overhaul society in its image, but neither is it a good reason to dismiss the ideas. I'm the first to agree that Hanson has pretty big blind spots, and he's about as non-neurotypical as they come (and therefore seems to often fall into a trap of terrible assumptions about how others will behave), but this is an awful example to use.
- lkey 5y ago
  'Were variolation trials not so legally problematic' It's not like they weren't going to study this, but studying it in a way that doesn't violate the core tenants of medical ethics took longer than vaccine development. Indeed, I see that it has continued to be studied into the present year, but results are not unilaterally good, especially regarding secondary cases. "they would likely have saved many, many lives" This statement is loaded with unfounded assumptions. Governments and epidemiologists, if even if they'd agreed with Hanson, might have had a tough time convincing the population to go to their doctors to be infected with Covid-lite. There are dozens of interventions at every point along the way that might have saved many many lives. What I find most inexcusable is Hanson, a self-styled numbers guy, justifying his urgency with a completely unfounded extrapolation. 'At that rate, in four months deaths go up by a factor of a million, which is basically the whole planet'. This is a completely, laughably unserious analysis. As to the 'futarchy', I think other comments here point out the flaws in any such system better than I could.

by lkey 5y ago

tlholaday 5y ago

> Truly a bizarre way to conceptualize the world. If familiarity is what you seek, look for echo chambers.

lkey 5y ago
Pithy, but I can't think of anything more pointless than seeking out a solipsist and trying to convince them I exist. Seeking contrary opinions for their own sake is not virtuous. Seeking out "heterodox opinions" from people with an established track record of being misinformed on a topic is downright foolish.

Matticus_Rex 5y ago

The numbers on variolation (the intentional infection he was talking about) still look like a pretty clear net positive. Were variolation trials not so legally problematic, they would likely have saved many, many lives, because as Hanson pointed out very early on the amount of exposure seems to be one of the larger factors in disease severity with COVID-19 (which was very predictable). And for most of his futarchy claims, he's relying directly on fairly good evidence. That's not a good reason to overhaul society in its image, but neither is it a good reason to dismiss the ideas. I'm the first to agree that Hanson has pretty big blind spots, and he's about as non-neurotypical as they come (and therefore seems to often fall into a trap of terrible assumptions about how others will behave), but this is an awful example to use.

lkey 5y ago
'Were variolation trials not so legally problematic' It's not like they weren't going to study this, but studying it in a way that doesn't violate the core tenants of medical ethics took longer than vaccine development. Indeed, I see that it has continued to be studied into the present year, but results are not unilaterally good, especially regarding secondary cases. "they would likely have saved many, many lives" This statement is loaded with unfounded assumptions. Governments and epidemiologists, if even if they'd agreed with Hanson, might have had a tough time convincing the population to go to their doctors to be infected with Covid-lite. There are dozens of interventions at every point along the way that might have saved many many lives. What I find most inexcusable is Hanson, a self-styled numbers guy, justifying his urgency with a completely unfounded extrapolation. 'At that rate, in four months deaths go up by a factor of a million, which is basically the whole planet'. This is a completely, laughably unserious analysis. As to the 'futarchy', I think other comments here point out the flaws in any such system better than I could.