Note that Dominic Cummings, one of the then most powerful men in the UK, [credits the rationality community] (https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1373333437319372804) for convincing him that the UK needed to change its coronavirus policy (which I personally am very grateful for!). So it seems unlikely to have been that obvious
Although I think Yarrow’s claim is that the LW community was not “particularly early on covid [and did not give] particularly wise advice.” I don’t think the rationality community saying things that were not at the time “obvious” undermines this conclusion as long as those things were also being said in a good number of other places at the same time.
Cummings was reading rationality material, so that had the chance to change his mind. He probably wasn’t reading (e.g.) the r/preppers subreddit, so its members could not get this kind of credit. (Another example: Kim Kardashian got Donald Trump to pardon Alice Marie Johnson and probably had some meaningful effect on his first administration’s criminal-justice reforms. This is almost certainty a reflection of her having access, not evidence that she is a first-rate criminal justice thinker or that her talking points were better than those of others supporting Johnson’s clemency bid.)
It’s quite a strange and interesting story, but I don’t think it supports the case that LessWrong actually called covid earlier than others. Let’s get into the context a little bit.
First off, Dominic Cummings doesn’t appear to be a credible person on covid-19, and seems to hold strange, fringe views. For example, in November 2024 he posted a long, conspiratorial tweet which included the following:
The Fauci network should be rolled up & retired en masse with some JAILED. And their media supporters—i.e most of the old media—driven out of business.
Incidentally, Cummings also had a scandal in the UK around allegations that he inappropriately violated the covid-19 lockdown and subsequently wasn’t honest about it (possibly lied about it). This also makes me a bit suspicious about his reliability.
This situation with Dominic Cummings reminds me a bit about how Donald Trump’s staffers in the White House have talked about how it’s nearly impossible to get him to read their briefings, but he’s obsessed with watching Fox News. Unfortunately, the information a politician pays attention to and acts on is not necessarily the best information, or the source that conveyed that information first.
As mentioned in the post above, there were already mainstream experts like the CDC giving public warnings before the February 27, 2020 blog post that was republished on LessWrong on February 28. Is it possible Dominic Cummings was, for whatever reason, ignoring warnings from experts while, oddly, listening to them from bloggers? Is Cummings’ narrative, in general, reliable?
I decided to take a look at the timeline of the UK government’s response to covid in March 2020. There’s an article from the BBC published on March 14, 2020, headlined, “Coronavirus: Some scientists say UK virus strategy is ‘risking lives’”. Here’s how the BBC article begins:
More than 200 scientists have written to the government urging them to introduce tougher measures to tackle the spread of Covid-19.
In an open letter, the 229 specialists in disciplines ranging from mathematics to genetics—though no leading experts in the science of the spread of diseases—say the UK’s current approach will put the NHS under additional stress and “risk many more lives than necessary”.
The signatories also criticised comments made by Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, about managing the spread of the infection to make the population immune.
The Department of Health said Sir Patrick’s comments had been misinterpreted.
The scientists—all from UK universities—also questioned the government’s view that people would become fed up with restrictions if they were imposed too soon.
By putting in place social distancing measures now, the growth can be slowed down dramatically, and thousands of lives can be spared. We consider the social distancing measures taken as of today as insufficient, and we believe that additional and more restrictive measures should be taken immediately, as it is already happening in other countries across the world.
The BBC article also mentions another open letter, then signed by 200 behavioural scientists (eventually, signed by 680), challenging the government’s rationale for not instituting a lockdown yet. That letter opened for signatures on March 13, 2020 and closed for signatures on March 16, 2020.
First, note that this open letter calling for social distancing measures was published 16 days after the February 28, 2020 post on LessWrong and 17 days after the February 27, 2020 blog post it was republishing. If the UK government changed its thinking on or approach to covid-19 in the last few days of February or the first few days of March based on Dominic Cummings reading the blog posts he mentioned in that tweet, why was this open letter still necessary on March 14? What exactly is Cummings saying the bloggers convinced him to do, and when exactly did he do it?
Another quote from the March 14, 2020 BBC article:
On March 16, 2020, the UK government advised the public to avoid non-essential social contact. On March 23, 2020, the government announced a nationwide lockdown that officially took effect on March 26. Is it possible the UK government’s response was more influenced by mainstream experts than by bloggers?
Note that Dominic Cummings, one of the then most powerful men in the UK, [credits the rationality community] (https://x.com/dominic2306/status/1373333437319372804) for convincing him that the UK needed to change its coronavirus policy (which I personally am very grateful for!). So it seems unlikely to have been that obvious
Although I think Yarrow’s claim is that the LW community was not “particularly early on covid [and did not give] particularly wise advice.” I don’t think the rationality community saying things that were not at the time “obvious” undermines this conclusion as long as those things were also being said in a good number of other places at the same time.
Cummings was reading rationality material, so that had the chance to change his mind. He probably wasn’t reading (e.g.) the r/preppers subreddit, so its members could not get this kind of credit. (Another example: Kim Kardashian got Donald Trump to pardon Alice Marie Johnson and probably had some meaningful effect on his first administration’s criminal-justice reforms. This is almost certainty a reflection of her having access, not evidence that she is a first-rate criminal justice thinker or that her talking points were better than those of others supporting Johnson’s clemency bid.)
It’s quite a strange and interesting story, but I don’t think it supports the case that LessWrong actually called covid earlier than others. Let’s get into the context a little bit.
First off, Dominic Cummings doesn’t appear to be a credible person on covid-19, and seems to hold strange, fringe views. For example, in November 2024 he posted a long, conspiratorial tweet which included the following:
Incidentally, Cummings also had a scandal in the UK around allegations that he inappropriately violated the covid-19 lockdown and subsequently wasn’t honest about it (possibly lied about it). This also makes me a bit suspicious about his reliability.
This situation with Dominic Cummings reminds me a bit about how Donald Trump’s staffers in the White House have talked about how it’s nearly impossible to get him to read their briefings, but he’s obsessed with watching Fox News. Unfortunately, the information a politician pays attention to and acts on is not necessarily the best information, or the source that conveyed that information first.
As mentioned in the post above, there were already mainstream experts like the CDC giving public warnings before the February 27, 2020 blog post that was republished on LessWrong on February 28. Is it possible Dominic Cummings was, for whatever reason, ignoring warnings from experts while, oddly, listening to them from bloggers? Is Cummings’ narrative, in general, reliable?
I decided to take a look at the timeline of the UK government’s response to covid in March 2020. There’s an article from the BBC published on March 14, 2020, headlined, “Coronavirus: Some scientists say UK virus strategy is ‘risking lives’”. Here’s how the BBC article begins:
The open letter says:
The BBC article also mentions another open letter, then signed by 200 behavioural scientists (eventually, signed by 680), challenging the government’s rationale for not instituting a lockdown yet. That letter opened for signatures on March 13, 2020 and closed for signatures on March 16, 2020.
First, note that this open letter calling for social distancing measures was published 16 days after the February 28, 2020 post on LessWrong and 17 days after the February 27, 2020 blog post it was republishing. If the UK government changed its thinking on or approach to covid-19 in the last few days of February or the first few days of March based on Dominic Cummings reading the blog posts he mentioned in that tweet, why was this open letter still necessary on March 14? What exactly is Cummings saying the bloggers convinced him to do, and when exactly did he do it?
Another quote from the March 14, 2020 BBC article:
On March 16, 2020, the UK government advised the public to avoid non-essential social contact. On March 23, 2020, the government announced a nationwide lockdown that officially took effect on March 26. Is it possible the UK government’s response was more influenced by mainstream experts than by bloggers?