Zvi wrote that he beleives the closeness of virus reproduction to one is not a coincidence, but a result of people responding to high reproduction by forbidding actions and low reproduction by going outside. I have copied his entire comment at the bottom of this post.
Assuming that Zvi is right, how would you update your positions? Would some actions previously seen as unethical now be ethical to you, and vice-versa?
When things are ‘getting worse’ we take ‘action’ by forbidding and forcibly stopping actions, and privately taking a mix of arbitrary and more sensible precautions, until we plausibly have things under control and cases shrinking. Anything beyond that, people won’t support.
[Question] If the reproduction number is socially “controlled” to its inflection point 1, what are the ethical and predictive implications?
Zvi wrote that he beleives the closeness of virus reproduction to one is not a coincidence, but a result of people responding to high reproduction by forbidding actions and low reproduction by going outside. I have copied his entire comment at the bottom of this post.
Assuming that Zvi is right, how would you update your positions? Would some actions previously seen as unethical now be ethical to you, and vice-versa?
When things are ‘getting worse’ we take ‘action’ by forbidding and forcibly stopping actions, and privately taking a mix of arbitrary and more sensible precautions, until we plausibly have things under control and cases shrinking. Anything beyond that, people won’t support.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/P7crAscAzftdE7ffv/covid-19-my-current-model