nn35

4 ms·

1.
by nn35 6y ago
Japan definitely did not do test and trace. Japan did 90%+ mask coverage.
2.
by nn35 6y ago
Masks seem significantly more important than tests. Hard to make the argument that testing is of primary importance considering Japan did almost none and still didn't see a significant outbreak.
3.
by nn35 6y ago
Would you still think it was judicial activism if it had the opposite effect on policy? If "emergency" is vaguely defined, it seems completely within the purview of the courts to clarify it. Nice summary btw.
4.
by nn35 6y ago
Marginal Revolution is more interesting than HN precisely because "X is widely believed, therefore X is true" doesn't fly as a line of argument over there. Although of course they do lack civility.
5.
by nn35 6y ago
Take a gap year and do what, exactly? Sitting around your parents' house for a year is probably worse than getting the coronavirus, for an 18 year old. Maybe much worse.
6.
by nn35 7y ago
We don't know the hospitalization rate. That site counts confirmed cases; epidemiologists seem to think total cases are greater by a factor of at least 10x. It also doesn't break out by age group. Taken together, these conside
7.
by nn35 7y ago
It does not seem remotely workable to me to shut down every grocery store in America with a positive COVID test among their staff. If you want to argue for less extreme measures, I will probably support them.
8.
by nn35 7y ago
-Immediate shutdown of any location where a worker tests positive for COVID-19. This seems likely to shut down the majority of Whole Foods stores in short order. An unreasonable request, IMO. Grocery stores are genuinely essential to soci
9.
by nn35 7y ago
What kind of info? Would love to know more.
10.
by nn35 7y ago
Are you confused or am I misreading your comment? The result is that 80% of positives are false positives, not that 80% of all tests are false positives. (IMO it is still fishy.)
11.
by nn35 7y ago
How did they estimate this? If anybody can read the actual paper, I’d love to know. If false positives dominate true positives then you’d expect total positives to depend primarily on number of tests given, right? Which sounds wrong to me,