This comment is intended more as a small aside rather than a sweeping comment, but for me personally the signal:noise ratio on these posts has gotten somewhat lower recently—still a much higher ratio than most sources.
I have been a consistent reader and found them extremely valuable. What I find valuable generally are the “status update” portions that contextualize changing cases/deaths/etc, the “evidence rundown” portions that discuss emerging evidence (such as the Long Covid section of this post), the specific predictions, and to some extent discussion of changing policy circumstances.
I generally don’t find the discussion of egregious examples of policy gone awry (eg Djokovic, fake KN95s, etc), or even broader discussions of policy framing (France, Think of the Children) to be as useful. When they are, it’s usually because they’re attached to a specific piece of data or information on significant policy changes, but lately they seem to have been variations on a similar theme (bad epistemology and/or excessive restrictions) that doesn’t add much post over post.
It may be that you view the repetition as valuable insofar as it convinces people that there is an issue! Just thought I’d note that I tend to start skimming to sections I find more useful.
Personally I think the repetition is OK, not least because many people don’t have time to read all the posts, nor in full (e.g. I don’t); and I expect many new readers will only read one or two posts, and it’s potentially useful that they see such egregious examples at least once, to get the gist.
I’m still finding these very useful at their current frequency.
EDIT: I should add, much of what I’m getting here is learning to appreciate the way Zvi thinks and his Not Covid section this time around was pretty good.
The silver-lining of the pandemic for me is that my epistemic reasoning has improved substantially, and I have a renewed appreciation for good science communication.
This is a real word scenario where we all have skin in the game and decisions have consequences. It’s an island of learning opportunities in a sea of dystopian tragedy, yes. But I really enjoy the visits to the island a few days a week. It’s at least a break from treading water in the sea.
egregious examples of policy gone awry (eg Djokovic
Also, some comments at MR suggest that the situation is more complicated. If I understand it correctly, there are things you need to do in order to enter the country, and things you need to do in order to participate in the tournament… and while he did the latter (by getting an exception, but anyway), he failed to do the former.
This comment is intended more as a small aside rather than a sweeping comment, but for me personally the signal:noise ratio on these posts has gotten somewhat lower recently—still a much higher ratio than most sources.
I have been a consistent reader and found them extremely valuable. What I find valuable generally are the “status update” portions that contextualize changing cases/deaths/etc, the “evidence rundown” portions that discuss emerging evidence (such as the Long Covid section of this post), the specific predictions, and to some extent discussion of changing policy circumstances.
I generally don’t find the discussion of egregious examples of policy gone awry (eg Djokovic, fake KN95s, etc), or even broader discussions of policy framing (France, Think of the Children) to be as useful. When they are, it’s usually because they’re attached to a specific piece of data or information on significant policy changes, but lately they seem to have been variations on a similar theme (bad epistemology and/or excessive restrictions) that doesn’t add much post over post.
It may be that you view the repetition as valuable insofar as it convinces people that there is an issue! Just thought I’d note that I tend to start skimming to sections I find more useful.
Personally I think the repetition is OK, not least because many people don’t have time to read all the posts, nor in full (e.g. I don’t); and I expect many new readers will only read one or two posts, and it’s potentially useful that they see such egregious examples at least once, to get the gist.
I’m still finding these very useful at their current frequency.
EDIT: I should add, much of what I’m getting here is learning to appreciate the way Zvi thinks and his Not Covid section this time around was pretty good.
The silver-lining of the pandemic for me is that my epistemic reasoning has improved substantially, and I have a renewed appreciation for good science communication.
This is a real word scenario where we all have skin in the game and decisions have consequences. It’s an island of learning opportunities in a sea of dystopian tragedy, yes. But I really enjoy the visits to the island a few days a week. It’s at least a break from treading water in the sea.
Also, some comments at MR suggest that the situation is more complicated. If I understand it correctly, there are things you need to do in order to enter the country, and things you need to do in order to participate in the tournament… and while he did the latter (by getting an exception, but anyway), he failed to do the former.