I haven’t actually seen the evidence that the LessWrong community was particularly early on covid or gave particularly wise advice on what to do about it.
I’m saying microcovid was a useful contribution on what to do about covid that came out of the rationality community.
Fair enough, but it seems more like a cool, fun coding project in the realm of science communication, rather than a prediction or some sort of original scientific research or analysis that generated new insights.
The infectious disease doctor interviewed for the Smithsonian Magazine article about microCovid said that microCovid is a user-friendly, clearly explained version of tools that already existed within the medical profession. So, that’s great, that’s useful, but it’s not a prediction or an original insight. It’s just good science communication and good coding.
The article also mentions two other similar risk calculators designed for use by the public. One of the calculators mentioned, Mathematica’s 19 and Me calculator, was released on or around May 11, 2020, more than 3 months before microCovid. I was able to find a few other risk calculators that were released no later than mid-May 2020. So, microCovid wasn’t even a wholly original idea, although it may have been differentiated from those previous efforts in some important ways.
When people say that LessWrong called covid early or was right about covid, what they mean is that LessWrong made correct predictions or had correct opinions about the pandemic (not by luck or chance, but by superior rationality) that other people didn’t make or didn’t have. And they say this in the context of providing reasons why the LessWrong community’s views or predictions on other topics should be trusted or taken seriously.
microCovid, as nice a thing as it may be, does not support either of those ideas.
I think when you look at the LessWrong community’s track record on covid-19, there is just no evidence to support this flattering story that the community tells about itself.
Top level post:
I’m saying microcovid was a useful contribution on what to do about covid that came out of the rationality community.
Fair enough, but it seems more like a cool, fun coding project in the realm of science communication, rather than a prediction or some sort of original scientific research or analysis that generated new insights.
The infectious disease doctor interviewed for the Smithsonian Magazine article about microCovid said that microCovid is a user-friendly, clearly explained version of tools that already existed within the medical profession. So, that’s great, that’s useful, but it’s not a prediction or an original insight. It’s just good science communication and good coding.
The article also mentions two other similar risk calculators designed for use by the public. One of the calculators mentioned, Mathematica’s 19 and Me calculator, was released on or around May 11, 2020, more than 3 months before microCovid. I was able to find a few other risk calculators that were released no later than mid-May 2020. So, microCovid wasn’t even a wholly original idea, although it may have been differentiated from those previous efforts in some important ways.
When people say that LessWrong called covid early or was right about covid, what they mean is that LessWrong made correct predictions or had correct opinions about the pandemic (not by luck or chance, but by superior rationality) that other people didn’t make or didn’t have. And they say this in the context of providing reasons why the LessWrong community’s views or predictions on other topics should be trusted or taken seriously.
microCovid, as nice a thing as it may be, does not support either of those ideas.
I think when you look at the LessWrong community’s track record on covid-19, there is just no evidence to support this flattering story that the community tells about itself.