Great link, helpful indeed, thank you.
(Way better than Scientific American's unnuanced dismissal of RCTs / "hierarchy of evidence" in general.)
If anyone happens to ever read this post in the distant future... I'd like to say, my "side point" at the end of this, was poorly thought out / poorly written / unkind.
Also, this post as a whole could have been framed a little better. I see some 'background' ideas that I could have included for better context, for one.
But in general I think it's better to leave up eh writings than delete it, so I'm not going to edit or delete this.
Appreciate that you got me thinking slightly more hopeful about AI, in your anecdotes that built into your last paragraph. Thank you!
As a side note, I also appreciate your quick point... about men possibly being disproportionately affected by some incoming negatives. -- I am worried about our current misunderstandings of male distress; and how these already existing problems could be exacerbated by AI, as you mention. Thanks for bringing this up.
That's cool. Thanks for letting me know Eli.
I think it's better in the less specific wording you changed it to.
On the other hand, I think the updated statement would be best interpreted as, a recommendation to get double-vaccinated AND boosted. Which I don't think there is evidence for, personally.
But what do I know, I'm not a particularly well-educated EA. And I could certainly be wrong.
In other words: I do think the wording now is better; but you probably shouldn't care too much what I think anyways :P
(Fwiw, I did also just mention in separate comment, I was a little too combative ((especially at the end)) in tone. I need to do a separate post on these "side thoughts" with much more nuance and evidence. And with the overarching theme being that I love EA / CEA, EA people, etc.)
I first thought it's a slight improvement, as it's a little less specific.
On the other hand, I believe being "up to date with WHO-approved vaccines" probably is best interpreted as being double-vaccinated AND boosted. Which I disagree with more than the original phrasing.
I don't see even slight evidence that this is a good recommendation, certainly not for healthy young men... but even for other demographics as well. (keeping in mind natural immunity backdrop, and recent vs old strains backdrop... and then comparing slight risks both ways)
(Also, I agree with you, that my "side thoughts" at the end were a little combative, and need further exploration and evidence, and thus may have been better suited for a separate post. Good point.)
Bro they just changed that statement now, seemingly from me posting this? Idk.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221222171814/https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ea-global/events/ea-global-london-2023"we recommend attendees to be double-vaccinated with WHO-approved vaccines."
As expected, this is getting more downvotes overall, at least for now.
I hope to get some feedback as to what specific nuances anyone thinks I am missing.