Out of curiosity, how come the strong speed premium on these posts? AFAICT there’s nothing here that informs short-term decisions for readers; I’ve been skimming and mostly tossing into my to-read pile for that reason. Know I’m not exactly an important stakeholder here, but personally I’d sorta prefer to read the synthesis from a chat between yourself and Scott rather than the blow-by-blow.
Interest in things internet has a half-life between 0.5 and 2 days, and I get an order of magnitude or more additional attention after an interest spike like this one.
(Also Rob’s answer that the underlying problem has a giant speed premium of its own, which is why the weekly posts and such.)
Thank you both! Zvi—makes sense re short duration of increased interest and effective to capitalize on it while that lasts. Rob—the part I’m not seeing is the causal link between these posts and influencing/improving decisions made by the FDA and CDC.
I note that posts like marginal revolution and others on first doses first likely had a serious effect on causing that to happen. So I think it’s fair to think that the discussion around here is having real effects, even if it’s indirect and hard to pin down very explicitly.
The FDA and CDC’s decisions over the coming weeks and months will have a large effect on how much death, suffering, and waste COVID-19 causes. If the FDA and CDC’s decisions aren’t “efficient”, then it makes more sense to try to influence and improve those decisions.
We’re also early into a presidential administration, when fewer policy and staffing decisions have been locked in (compared to a few months from now).
That said, it’s not obvious that trading longform posts makes more sense than Scott and Zvi (or other of people) doing a more iterated chat of some kind, and then summarizing afterwards.
(I don’t have a strong opinion on one being better than the other, just noting the possibility)
Out of curiosity, how come the strong speed premium on these posts? AFAICT there’s nothing here that informs short-term decisions for readers; I’ve been skimming and mostly tossing into my to-read pile for that reason. Know I’m not exactly an important stakeholder here, but personally I’d sorta prefer to read the synthesis from a chat between yourself and Scott rather than the blow-by-blow.
Interest in things internet has a half-life between 0.5 and 2 days, and I get an order of magnitude or more additional attention after an interest spike like this one.
(Also Rob’s answer that the underlying problem has a giant speed premium of its own, which is why the weekly posts and such.)
Thank you both! Zvi—makes sense re short duration of increased interest and effective to capitalize on it while that lasts. Rob—the part I’m not seeing is the causal link between these posts and influencing/improving decisions made by the FDA and CDC.
I note that posts like marginal revolution and others on first doses first likely had a serious effect on causing that to happen. So I think it’s fair to think that the discussion around here is having real effects, even if it’s indirect and hard to pin down very explicitly.
The FDA and CDC’s decisions over the coming weeks and months will have a large effect on how much death, suffering, and waste COVID-19 causes. If the FDA and CDC’s decisions aren’t “efficient”, then it makes more sense to try to influence and improve those decisions.
We’re also early into a presidential administration, when fewer policy and staffing decisions have been locked in (compared to a few months from now).
That said, it’s not obvious that trading longform posts makes more sense than Scott and Zvi (or other of people) doing a more iterated chat of some kind, and then summarizing afterwards.
(I don’t have a strong opinion on one being better than the other, just noting the possibility)