Although the article's main claim is probably correct in many reasonable senses, Talib's take is pretentious and hard to evaluate. As it is usual with Talib, t

Although the article's main claim is probably correct in many reasonable senses, Talib's take is pretentious and hard to evaluate. As it is usual with Talib, there is handwaving involved, he doesn't seriously engage with the opposing views, and the concepts are almost never clearly defined. Apparently, to compare the risk between the young and the old, he is using an estimate of the change to the annualized mortality rate due to Covid. It is not clear where his data is sourced from, but almost certainly he has not accounted for basic facts like the elderly being vaccinated earlier, or that they probably have been more cautious during the pandemic. And of course, he has removed people under 30 from his graph for expedience. [1] I think what Thiel says about Keynes is also applicable to Talib: despite his brilliance, he's also a bit of an elitist fraud. [2] [1]: However, if your eyes are still young, you can read this in small grey print under the chart: "For the youth the ratio is both lower and much more unstable owing the rarity of both death and death from COVID." [2]: https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/10/end-future-peter-thiel/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/10/end-future-peter-thie...