Overall this post reads to me like someone talking about a subject outside of their domain experience without any citations and without being aware of the mechanism the field in question sees.
Downvoted: I think there should be more to this comment. Currently it just reads as “the author is ignorant”. If the post is wrong, which parts? Maybe the author is ignorant! But I think you should make that case more fully. Not saying you need to write a counter-essay or anything, but from your comment, I can’t even tell what you disagree with.
One thing I like about LessWrong is that it’s a place where people who don’t work in a particular domain can post their reasoning about a topic, and whether or not their post is good or bad is judged on its merits, not on whether or not they have domain experience.
(At the object level: I remember early on my friend arguing to me that new variants couldn’t be more deadly, because “more deadly means less contagious”. So I think the author of this post is arguing against a real misconception, and I generally agree with the post).
Can you clarify what you mean or how do you think this should be explained? This in fact my domain of expertise. I don’t think any citations were needed in a short informal post.
Overall this post reads to me like someone talking about a subject outside of their domain experience without any citations and without being aware of the mechanism the field in question sees.
Downvoted: I think there should be more to this comment. Currently it just reads as “the author is ignorant”. If the post is wrong, which parts? Maybe the author is ignorant! But I think you should make that case more fully. Not saying you need to write a counter-essay or anything, but from your comment, I can’t even tell what you disagree with.
One thing I like about LessWrong is that it’s a place where people who don’t work in a particular domain can post their reasoning about a topic, and whether or not their post is good or bad is judged on its merits, not on whether or not they have domain experience.
(At the object level: I remember early on my friend arguing to me that new variants couldn’t be more deadly, because “more deadly means less contagious”. So I think the author of this post is arguing against a real misconception, and I generally agree with the post).
Can you clarify what you mean or how do you think this should be explained? This in fact my domain of expertise. I don’t think any citations were needed in a short informal post.
Generally, the case I read a lot of time is:
severe illness → people stay in bed → people don’t go events where they could pass the illness to other people
as well as
severe illness → death