Can't you estimate the number of COVID deaths based on what the baseline trend of deaths was relative to actual reported COVID deaths? It's high level but the best approximation. Using this method, COVID deaths are actually understated versus what has been reported.,(reply>), Perceiving hurt feelings while watching/listening.  Dropping the "Dr." prefix for "Tony", saying how easy it is to be humble- after the whole "They called us FRINGE!" "Some of the best scientists are fringe! We love fringe!" / "They booted ME - LEX EFFIN FRIDMAN - MIT blah blah after my name and with X followers (that you know- SOME people care about— not me of course- but other people). =]<br><br>I also think love is the answer, and that humility, and a lack of arrogance, are good things to strive for, and all that jazz.  Looking back, knowing what we know now, and acting like we knew it then- while also ignoring the real world issues we're still facing relating to the pandemic (care rationing, which we know leads to more deaths in-and-of itself, and as mentioned, high-level death-rate approximations) is a questionable approach to finding viable solutions that will work when we face a quote-unquote "real" virus.  (I fear that currently we'd respond worse than we initially did, and thus seal our fate in that case— but I'm probably wrong.)<br><br>Revisionist discussion is kinda meh.  If the virus had been worse, the outcomes would have been worse.  Imagine if we'd lost some huge percent of us (not to downplay the rather large numbers we have lost, regardless of how you tally).  That it is "like procedural programming" solvable with "simple ideas", and "focused protection"- and then naming just a couple things that makes it super complex and not simple or easily solvable (last but not least tackling people's fear of death/lack thereof?) seem at odds conceptually.  It's better to be sad than dead is what I'm getting at here, and there could have been- or could even still be, with a terrible mutation, which I feel was mostly ignored in the discussion.  As is the fact that it's the internet or something similar, contributing to the schism in politics and people, far more and far prior to, any pandemic.<br><br>As I recall at the onset of the pandemic, the general idea was more "let's slow this down while we figure things out", than "we can get to zero with lockdowns" (with the caveat of "it was implied" initially at least, but repeated repeatedly throughout the rest of the conversation without said caveat).  It's not just philosophy or politics or psychology- it's literally life and death for millions of people around the world (which is also strongly tied to philosophy and psychology and politics- but not usually in so explicit and directly observable a fashion).<br><br>It's an interesting and mellow interview (as they all are) but seemed a bit dissonant with itself, which is I think, unusual.  During it, would've been a good time to do the stuff mentioned in the intro, as maybe - if I had to describe what I'm on about - I'd call this an overly-sympathetic discussion?<br><br>For instance, do lockdowns even /slow/ the spread?  It seems like I'm hearing that lockdowns didn't/don't do anything and are bad (except when they're needed and targeted), and although data is always changing as we accumulate more of it, I think we can point out some places where lockdowns <b>were</b> effective.  Mistakes were made, and will be made, but offering these ideas up as some solution (historically or for the future) seems unrealistic.  The "single principle that works" is what we did!  Acting like it's easy to determine who and what and where to target, while also saying how hard it is to do that?  Ouch.  It is important we don't demonize people and discuss things rationally for sure... we could probably just focus on that and improving our data gathering (tho increasing data collection and collation is in itself something scary!).<br><br>Playing fast and loose with the maths (it would have been refreshing to get unbiased numbers, versus just formulas biased in another direction, as it were) made things seem move advocacy-based than fact-finding-missiony. as they say.<br><br>Nothing exactly wrong with advocacy, and I guess it should be expected when at the outset we hear "this is a response to the advocacy", or what-not... but I wanted to get armed with more info, um, more (because there's no shortage of advocacy these days, in any direction basically- while unbiased numbers and data and logic are hard to come by). <br>[if there were any JUSTICE in the world, at this point, the author would claim to be biased against bias and/or advocating against advocating, and thus promptly pop out of existence...  Sadly there is none but that which we create out of whole cloth— so this continues for a while more yet - Ed.]<br><br>Still neat to get some dirt and whatnot - spilt tea as it were -  and more insight into some things I'd only half-way paid attention to on the social/psychological side, though!  And there were lots of great points for sure, I don't mean this to be harsh criticism, as I loved the ideas regarding caring about people around the world, and unintended consequences, etc.  It just seems like a lot of really complex, difficult to figure out things were glossed over (much of what I've mentioned here was touched on, however it was like "we know what the right answer is now", when in reality the problem isn't a set one that a procedural program or whatnot can solve, as we're dealing with open feedback loops, not closed ones).<br><br>I get missing hugs, and was right there too, being a big hugger myself... sometimes we have to sacrifice for others and especially old people (I don't mind standing up in the bus, so the less-able can sit, if you catch my drift) to preserve part of what makes us special, and amazing beings, overall.  We <b>are</b> pack-animals (and tribal ones at that), which cuts both ways.  I totally agree on the ideas relating to fear, and the gist of silencing decent being Bad.<br><br>Happy to get to spend some time existing with everyone even if it is not the most fantastic experience imaginable (I'd rather be making sweet, sweet physical love, at this very moment, than typing characters into the aether, but it is what it is, and I'm not complaining, since this is still pretty "up there", in the grand scheme of things).<br><br>Summarized [Ha! -Ed.]: Together we'll make it through, everything is part of something larger than itself, peaceful loving is the question and the solution, etc.! ❤<br><br>--<br>ORTHOGRAPHY, n. The science of spelling by the eye instead of the ear. Advocated with more heat than light by the outmates of every asylum for the insane. They have had to concede a few things since the time of Chaucer, but are none the less hot in defence of those to be conceded hereafter.<br><br>A spelling reformer indicted<br>For fudge was before the court cicted.<br>The judge said: "Enough --<br>His candle we'll snough,<br>And his sepulchre shall not be whicted."<br>- Ambrose Bierce from "The Devil's Dictionary"