Okay, but those are textbook chapters. If you’re looking for those I recommend Chapter 28 of Fields Virology, 6th edition (similar information to Fehr & Perlman, better presentation, somewhat more comprehensive).
But do you really think LessWrong should be going for something more comprehensive than that? I don’t really see the value in that, as opposed to getting a smart-person’s-summary that links to more comprehensive resources.
But do you really think LessWrong should be going for something more comprehensive than that
...no, for the reasons you state. And I’m not sure why you think I do. Having found those I wasn’t planning on actively searching for a better answer (although I’m looking forward to checking out both the chapter you recommend and the posts you are writing).
Sorry, I think these comments came across as more aggressive than I was intending. I think there’s mutual confusion/talking at cross-purposes here. I’m not sure it’s worth digging into too much since I’m not sure there’s actually any decision-relevant disagreement, so feel free to disregard the following (uh, even more than usual) if you don’t fancy digging into this further. :-)
I’m not sure why you think I do.
From my perspective, my confusion arises from the following:
You included basic coronavirus biology on something called a LessWrong coronavirus agenda, as an example of something you wanted to “nudg[e] LessWrong to pursue”;
You then gave a counterexample of something that both assumed too much background knowledge and left too much out, suggesting that you’d like whatever LessWrong pursued in that area to not have those deficiencies;
This suggested to me that you’d like LessWrong coverage of basic coronavirus biology that simultaneously assumed less background knowledge and left less out than that counterexample;
But I don’t see how that would be possible without someone on LessWrong writing a complete from-first-principles molecular biology course.
Based on this conversation I think I’m probably misinterpreting what inclusion on the agenda implies you’d like to see LessWrongers do.
I ended up being pretty happy with both of the following, although neither was complete.
Medical Microbiology Chapter 57: Coronaviruses (less technical of the two, although still aimed at biologists)
Coronaviruses: An Overview of Their Replication and Pathogenesis
Okay, but those are textbook chapters. If you’re looking for those I recommend Chapter 28 of Fields Virology, 6th edition (similar information to Fehr & Perlman, better presentation, somewhat more comprehensive).
But do you really think LessWrong should be going for something more comprehensive than that? I don’t really see the value in that, as opposed to getting a smart-person’s-summary that links to more comprehensive resources.
...no, for the reasons you state. And I’m not sure why you think I do. Having found those I wasn’t planning on actively searching for a better answer (although I’m looking forward to checking out both the chapter you recommend and the posts you are writing).
Sorry, I think these comments came across as more aggressive than I was intending. I think there’s mutual confusion/talking at cross-purposes here. I’m not sure it’s worth digging into too much since I’m not sure there’s actually any decision-relevant disagreement, so feel free to disregard the following (uh, even more than usual) if you don’t fancy digging into this further. :-)
From my perspective, my confusion arises from the following:
You included basic coronavirus biology on something called a LessWrong coronavirus agenda, as an example of something you wanted to “nudg[e] LessWrong to pursue”;
You then gave a counterexample of something that both assumed too much background knowledge and left too much out, suggesting that you’d like whatever LessWrong pursued in that area to not have those deficiencies;
This suggested to me that you’d like LessWrong coverage of basic coronavirus biology that simultaneously assumed less background knowledge and left less out than that counterexample;
But I don’t see how that would be possible without someone on LessWrong writing a complete from-first-principles molecular biology course.
Based on this conversation I think I’m probably misinterpreting what inclusion on the agenda implies you’d like to see LessWrongers do.