Lyman Stone 石來民

Soooooo if we are at 40% by the end of February and also we’ve cut the IFR to quite low levels.... seems like we should be good.

There are few documented areas with exposure rates over 25%, and virtually no models now estimate the exposure rate at which new infections would plateau anywhere above 30-35%, most around 25%.

Anyways Moderna and Pfizer are able to vaccinate between them about 15-30 million people in December and 20-50 million in January onwards. With maybe 50 million already carrying antibodies by end of December, and maybe 80 million more vaccinated, that’s like 40% coverage.

asking for a friend whose named rhymes with shmyman shmone who is wondering about airplane tickets in march

If you assume that by the end of December ~20-25% of younger people already have antibodies as well, that groups with IFRs over ~0.75% have been vaccinated, and also that essential workers are vaccinated... do you maintain any restrictions?

Sorry that should be ~0.1% not <0.1%.

Once vaccines go out to high-risk populations, the COVID's IFR will mechanically fall to the IFR of younger age groups, which is like <0.1%. The question is: at that level, will governments continue to bother with restrictive policies or not?

Tbh the more dynamic map with more prominent terrain makes combat feel a ton more interesting and engaging. I know the character/role playing element was supposed to be the big improvement but it’s wars that feel most improved to me.

I while back I threw some shade at CK3. I still have some beefs with it. The mapmode options are not nearly exhaustive enough and the roleplaying aspects are weak given that’s what this was supposed to improve on. But the war mechanisms are tons better.

Buying Greenland was an excellent proposal and we should honestly see if we can do it!https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1335296799297433603 …

If you want a bureaucracy that can "keep up" with a pharma industry that can invent a new vaccine development procedure and roll out the vaccine in two months and then have hundreds of millions of doses ready in 10, you aren't gonna have a low-stress work environment!

The difficulty firing Federal workers is a huge perk of the job which all employees treasure. But it also creates a secondary perk: a leisurely and low-stress work environment without a lot of pressure.

That is, you'll tend to retain people who dislike having to make decisions, dislike being held accountable, and dislike doing things on their own, i.e. without running up a large staff time bill.

SOmetimes performance pay gets batted around, like if we change the GS payscale we'll retain more talent. That may be true but it won't fix the deeper issue. As long as there is a mismatch between expertise, decision rights, and accountability, the problem persists at any wage.

In the long run, this impasse attracts people to the bureaucracy who are extremely worried about failure, i.e. want to work in environments where they have big cushions for failures, low risks, few high-stakes decisions, etc.

But because it's hard for the public to tell the difference between firing incompetent vs. politically disfavored workers, we are sort of at an impasse.

Because you can't really hold Federal workers accountable, it's hard for managers to trust that their decisions are actually going to be good ones.

It would not have blown back on me. Federal workers are basically untouchable. It'd blow back on the political appointees up the chain. *Accountability* is misallocated. That creates managerial motives for nitpicking and micromanaging.