> For the United Kingdom, extending the interval between doses was clearly the right choice, but the country’s lockdown deserves part of the credit for that success
This is important for anyone who thinks it might be a good idea to wait. You have to carefully weigh the risk of being vulnerable in the meantime.
The vaccines are still quite effective after the first dose, and, I'm saying this without being a researcher in this area, should be enough to flatten the curve.
Wow that's impressive, I thought it was ~50% after the first dose. I guess it's like ML, to get the last percentage points you need exponential effort?
One conclusion a friend of mine wrote about this is "One other surprising thing which is not obvious, but is made very clear from the results, is that it really takes real time for this vaccine to get effective. It only starts becoming truly useful after 2 weeks, but even then keeps getting better with time. This effect is one reason why there was a very real lag between when Israel got vaccinated at a very high percentage of population and when the cases started freefalling (2-3 weeks+). "
It isn't that simple though. The first dose still provides some protection. The choice is usually between a lot of people having some protection, vs a smaller amount of people having full protection.
Yes, rather than "some", I would say that the first dose provides the majority of protection, and the second is a booster, upping the effectiveness from the 70s to the 90s. If you are short vaccine, it makes a lot of sense to give out only a single dose to more people than both doses to a smaller group of people and then circle back when more is produced. The only question is whether it makes sense to circle back if the time elapsed is long, and this study is evidence that it does.
The quoted salaries are 99% of the time excluding the employer paid portion of health insurance, which for an individual is typically at least 50% of the cost (~$2k to $6k depending on your age), but at a white collar tech firm, I would expect even more. For family coverage, the employers that pay well cover the other family members too so that can be added on as well, you might be looking at $20k+ in additional pre tax pay that isn’t mentioned when people state their nominal wages.
Plus HSA contributions, 401k matching, dependent care FSA contributions, etc. The US has tons of tax advantage pay options for the well heeled employers. If someone says they’re earning $250k, and doesn’t specify if it’s total comp or not, I assume the employer is kicking in an extra $50k for various benefits.
Not in their dollar amount unless something really weird is going on - the effective cost of US employees is a lot higher than employees elsewhere in the world due to the overhead of health insurance - but US salaries remain pretty much at the top of major nations world-wide even ignoring that cost.
I think a lot of people seem to forget that employers pay more than the base salary in Europe. For instance your “salary” in Sweden is 31.42% higher than what you’re told your base salary is, due to pension contributions, and social services.
As an employer I would have to pay 78.852 if an employee had a base salary of 60.000.
This is before personal income taxes, which are also very high.
I don't believe there's any country in the first world where your take home matches the employer's out of pocket - in the US you've got healthcare, retirement matching, payroll taxes, other employment fees and a few other employer-side taxes. Most other countries follow a similar logic, relying on offloading some of the income tax burden onto the employer to prevent a total loss of tax income from judgement proof folks - it's always why withholding and tax refunds are so encouraged. If you've got proper or overaggressive withholding setup with your employer than it isn't possible for you to find yourself with a 10k bill in April that you can't pay - instead the government will return any wrongfully withheld income and you get a "bonus check".
In terms of the proportion 31% is relatively small honestly - employee charges in the US generally range somewhere in 40-60% but senior developers with families often have payroll overhead that can run upwards of 80k and can represent a much higher proportion of the employer's out of pocket employment expenses. These costs can be extreme at relatively hip progressive companies that employ some unskilled folks. Your 5k/month healthplan might be proportionally little on your 150k salary but if someone working in the mail room and earning 20k annual has the same benefits it'll work out to 300% their take home cost - this is why employers often segregate benefit packages to different pay ranges.
In the U.S. I don’t think it’s really possible to (legally) segregate benefit packages by pay range. What they do is segregate based on part time/full time, and barring that, use contractors for their low paid positions.
Not really. The ACA (Obamacare) caps overhead and profits at either 15% or 20% depending on market (google "medical loss ratio").
The dirty secret is that too many doctors go into medicine for the wrong reasons (making money, instead of helping people), and collude to limit the number of new doctors created each year. The AMA is by far the most effective union in the US.
The profits may be capped but US healthcare is still insanely expensive compared to other first world nations. Articles on the internet seem to say that the US was 4-5 times as expensive in 2019 - but more reliable research from 2010[1] puts that number closer to 2 times as expensive. The issue is that the US's broken healthcare system just costs a lot more per patient than anything else - and a lot of companies take cuts of every dollar that goes into that cost while, in Canada, a lot of types of organizations: PBMs, Payers, Reimbursers - are all just the government, and it doesn't do that work for free, but it's a lot more efficient.
> The profits may be capped but US healthcare is still insanely expensive compared to other first world nations.
Number 1: It's not the profits that are capped. Profits plus operating expenses are capped. Operating expenses (like paying folks in the call center to answer questions about coverage, adjudicating claims, etc.) come out of the insurance company's 15/20% (national/regional). If medical claims are less than 75/80% of premiums, the insurer is legally obligated to issue rebates. If the cost of administering the plan is more than 15/20%... too bad, so sad: the insurance company is legally obligated to loose money and (eventually, if they don't fix it) go bankrupt.
Number 2: I never said that it wasn't more expensive in the US. Just that health insurance companies are not the reason it is so (which was the reason you cited for the US's high healthcare costs). Mathematically, even if you assume it's entirely graft and profit (and it's not--processing claims is not free), the very best you can do is a 20% reduction in costs. What accounts for the rest?
Bear in mind that medical doctors in the USA earn as much as FAANG engineers. The average doctor salary across all specialties in the USA is $300k. Many earn 2x that. By way of comparison, it is unusual for a doctor in the UK to earn even as much as $200k, and the average is around $100k.
Unless the UK is somehow finding people who will pay money to the NHS in exchange for the honor of answering phones and administering claims, I find it difficult to believe that health insurers are anywhere close to the biggest driver of healthcare costs in the US.
When you include residents in the US pay the "average across all specialities" is way less than $300k.
> Specialists range £41k to £76k.
You've misunderstood what they said. They said "speciality doctors", not "specialist doctors". In England the trainee ranking is Foundation Years, Core Trainee, Speciality Trainee.
Rereading a book, one could pick up on things that were missed previously or that have been forgotten about. Also, one might be in a different life situation or mindset from one read to the next which could alter the perception or enjoyment of what's being read. Not to mention that some prose can be appreciated for its beauty.
TV shows, movies, and albums are often revisited by people who enjoy them. Even as I write this, I'm listening to an album right now that I've heard dozens of times before. I may not always be in the mood to listen to it, but my enjoyment of the music has not been eroded by how many times I've already heard it. Rather, being familiar with it, I appreciate both how it's composed, played, and the nuances that are now apparent to me that I certainly missed on my first listens.
One of my favorite books when I was younger was "Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art" by Scott McCloud. It was visually appealing to me at the time, but after several readings, I started to really grasp its concepts as an educational art book.
> Also, one might be in a different life situation or mindset from one read to the next which could alter the perception or enjoyment of what's being read
Catcher in the Rye springs to mind. Interesting reading at different times.
One additional point is that when you know where the plot is going and things that are "unknown" at the time, one can appreciate some of the hints or world building even more. Like a detective novel or so, on re-read knowing the killer one can analyze everything and get a new experience from the same content.
I also re-read like people listen to music. I read Harry Potter 1-3 a few times waiting for book four, then 1-2-3-4, then next year 1-2-3-4-5 etc, and then each exam period at uni I would read it when relaxing. Like, just turn my brain off, I don't want new input, just replay something. So I've probably read the first 3-4 books 30+ times (I had a count up to 20 or so).
I also find re-reading books frequently have diminishing returns, but after some time, you and your world changes, which results in you having a different point of view when you re-read the book.
As you change, the meaning of the book to you changes as well, and gives you new perspectives along with new ideas. E.g. a specific villain or a side character in the book might not be attractive or simply confusing to you, but as you re-read the book, you realize that you get them and they now make perfect sense.
Books, TV series, movies, music...if I make some emotional connection while experiencing it, I'm likely to want to repeat that experience later.
When I buy a book (or in the olden days, a DVD/etc), I'm factoring rereadings into the value proposition. If I don't think I'm going to want to reread, I'll prefer to get it from the library.
So, most content in my personal library is there because I expect to experience it repeatedly. And I'll tell you, it can be fascinating to take some experience you treasured as as preteen, and then experience it anew from the perspective of a parent. It's pretty funny relating more to the dopey dad and less to the hero.
But not everything is about getting a different take on repeat experiences. Sometimes I just want another hit of whatever that piece of media made me feel.
I do both. And movies. If it’s not worth reading or watching a second or third time, it wasn’t worth it the first time. I read Hamlet every year or two. It gets me every time. I’ve seen the Maltese Falcon about five times, and it still amazes me with its perfection each time. I’ve seen the Pickle Rick episode of Rick and Morty three times, and I fully intend to watch it three more times. Pure genius. Anything good has layers and details that usually can not be fully appreciated the first time through. Do you only listen to a song you like once?
"Incidentally, I use the word reader very loosely. Curiously enough, one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader. And I shall tell you why. When we read a book for the first time the very process of laboriously moving our eyes from left to right, line after line, page after page, this complicated physical work upon the book, the very process of learning in terms of space and time what the book is about, this stands between us and artistic appreciation. When we look at a painting we do not have to move our eyes in a special way even if, as in a book, the picture contains elements of depth and development. The element of time does not really enter in a first contact with a painting. In reading a book, we must have time to acquaint ourselves with it. We have no physical organ (as we have the eye in regard to a painting) that takes in the whole picture and then can enjoy its details. But at a second, or third, or fourth reading we do, in a sense, behave towards a book as we do towards a painting. However, let us not confuse the physical eye, that monstrous masterpiece of evolution, with the mind, an even more monstrous achievement. A book, no matter what it is—a work of fiction or a work of science (the boundary line between the two is not as clear as is generally believed)—a book of fiction appeals first of all to the mind. The mind, the brain, the top of the tingling spine, is, or should be, the only instrument used upon a book."
It depends heavily on the genre, at least for me. So-called genre fiction--mysteries, sci-fi, fantasy, that sort of thing--really doesn't hold up to rereading, since the whole draw is, by and large, the setting and the plot. I still remember the solution at the end of Murder on the Orient Express, and I still know how Liu Cixin's theory of galactic civilizations is going to play out in the Three Body Problem, so there's not really a draw to reread those books: the language is serviceable but not exciting (at least in the translated TBP), there's no real symbolism/inter-textuality to dig into on further readings, &c. However, I still find myself rereading favorites like Gravity's Rainbow and Moby Dick every few years: the jokes are still funny, the language is still beautiful, and it's still enjoyable to ponder the references and metaphors the authors are (possibly) building.
Your comparison to television is a pretty good one, honestly. I've never really rewatched an episode of a serial television series (other than trying to refresh my memory when picking up a new season), since there usually isn't any substance there beyond the plot and characters, but I'll happily rewatch movies if the directing, cinematography, and/or acting are compelling enough.
The complexity of A Song of Ice and Fire... You get a lot out of a second read-through. There the density of the plot development is so thick that you don't even know what you're supposed to focus on. Some things that are mentioned in the first few hundred pages can resonate much stronger after reading the last few hundred pages.
That's just one example. It obviously depends on the book.
Getting "absolutely nothing" out of something seems more like a choice.
At different points in your life great stories can impact you in different ways. A simple example of one that could do this is The Road by Cormack McCarthy. I never had kids, but from what I've heard people who read it after becoming a parent are hit with far stronger emotions than those who don't have kids.
Actually, yes. I haven't done it with books, but there are a few shows I've rewatched. Usually it's something I enjoy having on in the background while I do other things, similar to having background music. It started as me just knowing I liked the show, and not needing to pay full attention to it to follow along. But I notice a lot of new things on subsequent viewing, and knowing the basic plot already I'm able to appreciate how the writers are setting things up, establishing the characters, etc. in ways that become very significant later. And the first-time through I just don't notice that kind of thing or appreciate it. It feels like getting more depth in the art of it rather than just experiencing more breadth from another artist.
I also look at paintings more than once in my life, consume my favorite meals more than once and so on. For those without a perfect memory, re-reading a good book can often teach us new things.
Rereading (or "reexperiencing") something can be very valuable. Since you already know where the destination is going to be, you get to focus your attention on more of the little details you might not have picked up on the first time through.
With that said, I only occasionally do it for books because of the time commitment. I have a large list of books I want to read, and only read about 25 books a year. So if I am going to reread something, it's usually for a specific reason or I am was in a specific mood.
When Vladimir Nabokov was teaching literature, he instructed the students to read each novel twice, to get over the plot suspense so they could concentrate on the details. When they appeared for the final examination, they encountered questions like, “Describe the wallpaper in the Karenins’ bedroom”.
While I understand the idea of rereading a few books here and there, it's pretentious assholery to imagine you shouldn't read new books because you're getting older. That's just an idiot who pretends to be the smartest guy in the room. There aren't too many types of people more pathetic than someone who never tries new entertainment. "I only like the old stuff". Because someone is only a good artist or writer after they've been dead for a century.
I re-read maybe 5% of books, and I tend to get a lot out of re-reading. Nassim Taleb said something like "if it's not worth re-reading, it was not worth reading in the first place".
My re-watch rate on movies and TV series is much higher, probably 85% of movies I will watch more than once. TV series, maybe 50%.
Some people just read or watch and never care to think much about it after. That's cool too; doesn't hurt me any.
The value of re-reading will be low if you’re reading high noise to signal books that could be compressed into a blog post (e.g. anything by Adam Grant).
If you read more dense books of philosophy, literature, or otherwise you’ll get a lot more value out of re-reading since you likely have missed things upon first read. Same thing with tv shows that contain a complicated plot vs. ones that are churned out for quick consumption.
I’m as surprised at your surprise! I’ve seen The Office in its entirety more than 10 times, my other favorite shows 3-5 times each, and most generally popular shows at least twice. Often when a new season arrives, I start again at season 1 if it’s been a while. Same goes for my favorite novels, of which there aren’t as many.
Perhaps it’s relevant that I have a terrible memory for plot.
I'm the same for fiction; I can't read a fiction book twice. My SO can re-read the same fiction over and over. I just don't get it. Now, there are some movies I can watch again. But only once or twice and then I'm done for a very long time.
Re-reading Pop-Psy and Airport literature is not the recommended reading. How about reading Hayek, Strauss for second time? How about reading man's search for meaning for the third time?
You re-read great works, not NYT best shiller! (sic).
Quite an assumption to make about those that don’t like to re-read books. I love reading, I’m very picky about the books I read, and yet I find I’m only re-reading a small handful of books, many years after I last read them.
I had to make some assumptions - given the OP said they did not see any value in re-reading. Not every thing is a candidate for re-read, for the fact of the matter 90% of airport literature is not worth single read let alone re-read.
Take any good from my post and leave the rest. I am not the most finesse commentator.. but at least I am not accusatory.
Why would you re-read them when you could read something new? Do you find you're actually getting a significant amount of value or joy from it the second time around?
I ask because I think a good portion of the reason I enjoy software development is the absolute and total hatred I have for repetition in my life.
For some highly complex books, a reread is more like a re-analysis of the text based off of ones existing knowledge. There will be nuances and details that were missed the first go around, that is uncovered the second time around, making the understanding of the piece richer. It’s like mathematics- everything is built on fundamentals.
(Some people also derive comfort in familiar stories.)
More than 90% of things that are new to me disappoint me. I don’t know how to find new things, especially fiction, with the expectation that it will hold my interest. Whereas something new from my favorite author has much better odds, and rereading my favorite novel is a sure thing.
1. It’s totally easy to miss things when reading: certainly little delightful details, or even whole ideas or plot points.
2. It’s not like there are millions of great books out there. Some entertaining ones, some informative ones, a few that are both, and a very few life changers.
> As you get older, you should read fewer new books,
What? Why? Who says?
I plan to read just as many if not more new books as I get older.
I do not understand your answer about "the leverage algorithms can provide".
I enjoy reading new fiction books. Why "should" I do it less as I get older? If I someday retire, I would plan to use some of my additional free time to read even more books.
It has been about 15+ years since I had watched TOS star trek. I recently started watching them again. I recently went back and am watching 1 a week, same with Stargate. I find them very enjoyable again. Some books/movies/shows work better at a particular pace. I found that binge watching them makes them decidedly less enjoyable. Other shows are basically designed to be 10 hour movies. So those are OK to do that with (westworld being an example of that).
Sometimes it is worth taking a break and give it a decent amount of time. Then watch it again. I have a few dozen shows I know I liked when I was younger. I could even give you a 'outline' of one of the shows that I could make up. Yet for the life of me I could not tell you exactly what 1 episode was about without looking it up. I know I liked them. Yet I no longer really remember them. Those are ripe for revisiting. But sometimes it is best to leave them as 'fondly remembered' and my older sensibilities do not match what I had years ago.
But yeah watching the same thing every other day and you will grow bored with it.
I also recently went through the TOS. It really holds up. The best episodes are timeless. TOS has an energy and drama that I don’t see in any of the shows or movies that leach off of that world. I’m probably biased, as TOS is part of my childhood, but it’s the only one I like.
I don't know if you should but it's not a bad advice. I do that occasionally, re-read a book I read as a teenager or young adult and it is interesting how sometimes one can pick up different details or understand things differently.
Besides the shoddy number work, does this really tell us anything?
I mean, if everyone read "exactly what was needed" then that would significantly change the distribution since the current is based on "what marketers make me think I need."
Therefore, this article could be viewed as positive improvement of efficiency in the book buying market. Ie more people buying "the book they need" vs "want because of flashy marketing" based on increased access to search and reviews.
Most people just don't read any books. Whether I buy physical or audible mainly depends on the books content. Story-heavy books (most) are great on audible, more technical stuff deserves physical.
I prefer both for this reason. With physical it's easy for me to mark it up/add tab bookmarks for fast reference. If I buy a book I try to find it on libgen as well so I can carry it around / search digitally.
