In retrospective cohort studies, researchers track newly occurring incidents during the study window.
If someone has a history, but suffers a new episode from covid, that is a medical event that should be counted.
> Regardless, even if we did go with this Spanish study, you still can't say that a 5% chance of infection is worse. You can say that a 5% of symptomatic infection is worse.
Yes you can. The mechanism for the side effect (as per your own source) is the same in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Recipients of the vaccine do not get respiratory symptoms, and yet can contract the (very rare) side effects.
And as for your source, the author, Dr. Joseph Wu:
> “But COVID’s worse,” he added. A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, Wu said. That’s in addition to all the other trouble it causes.
If we accept your (extremely unrealistic) premise, then sure, but the numbers get worse at just a 5% chance of contracting the virus itself, and downhill from there.
Have you actually checked any of the referenced studies in that database? They do not say what Malone claims they say.
I just picked one randomly [0]:
> Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis found low incidence rate and largely favorable early outcomes of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine–associated myopericarditis in adolescents and young adults from a wide range of populations.
I also did a brief dive elsewhere in thread [1]:
> The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in the total population exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was 5/100,000 (CI95%:3 to 8 per 100,000), compared to 70/100,000 (CI95%: 66 to 92 per 100,000) in those who were not vaccinated.
> The incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection was 200/100,000 people (CI95%: 114 to 306 per 100,000).
If you're referring to the Mike Kwan paper, he was on (I believe, it was years ago) the Science Vs podcast to debunk claims by the likes of Malone and Rogan regarding his study.
But yes, there are instances of myocarditis from vaccines, but occurance was 4-5/100k as opposed to unvaccinated 200/100k.
Edit: in his words:
> MK: All the cases were hospitalised because we wanted to perform a detailed workup for them
> RR: So they didn't need to be there to, like, keep them alive.
> WZ: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. In fact, he said that that these these patients, they all cleared up with either painkillers[50] like ibuprofen …
> MK: Some of them even not require medications, and they just take a rest, and eventually they recover by themselves, and none of them got severe complications, and no cases of mortality, most importantly. And all of them recover and went back home. And so far, some patients are being followed up around 7 months[51] and they’re very good, no problem, so this is very good news.
I agree, both in theory and that it's easier said than done, but I don't necessarily think that education is a primary reason, but merely a long term prerequisite of the project surviving.
I'm sure some are convinced LLMs can (eventually) manage everything, and others (I'm leaning more here) are convinced that you will always need a minimum amount of people both educated in the fundamentals and the domain to steer the project, and these people wont exist down the path of non-human PRs.
The reasons are functional in aggregate, but not necessarily per specific PR.
You could get a perfectly adequate instance of a PR that is easily readable and verifiable while generated by an LLM, but generally they're not.
A policy pushes the aggregate to at least what looks and communicates as a human made PR that is functionally easier to approve. Whether they are created by an LLM or not is then secondary, but it likely pushes all PRs to be better.
They may not recoup R&D costs for a while depending on volume, but they will make a profit per unit. They can't sell them as loss leaders like regular console manufacturers can, since then general computer buyers would get them as a priced down unlocked PC.
It has 1M context, and it's not a huge codebase, and the context is sub 10% for a thorough task. This is an LLM issue, not a model/harness issue.
I've run copilot/gemini/pi/opencode/etc for a long time, against all major providers. Don't get me wrong, I get good productivity out of it or I wouldn't use it, but it's very different from intelligence.
I run Claude Max daily, and tried letting Opus 4.8 write an ADR with known requirements.
After searching through codebase, git history, etc it spat out a surface level reasonable ADR, with the customary bloated text.
I started reading through it asking "Is this sentence needed?: '<sentence>'", whereby it acknowledges that no, it adds nothing and changes nothing not already served by other statements. I ask it to go through each sentence one by one asking the same question. It claims to do so, and give me two suggestions to remove in the entire document.
I then spend a few more minutes giving 10 additional sentences manually that it happily acknowledges are redundant.
I ask why those weren't removed in my previous prompt, and frankly I can't remember specifically what rationalization it gave, I assume because it's not memorable because there can be none, because it very obviously is not reasoning.
> > The Georgia data center is only using ~2% of the county’s water. For comparison, a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant is using ~4% of the county’s water. A construction plant for Rivian cars is using about the same amount of water as Meta’s data center. The data center is functioning like any other normal industry in the county.
How much employment and localized value/tax revenue is created by the pharma plant compared to the data center to offset the environmental effect?
The downstream portion isn't proven, and more importantly, even if it was, it's not localized to where the data center is built (and its effect on the local population).
> Product safety is about information. When Bob knows that a particular brand of milk is adulterated with chalk, he doesn't buy it. Which means that all you need for this is product labeling and liability.
This is regulation, and it's only as good as enforcement. Meaning it requires government inspections and labs. Again, we've already proven this in history.
> sue them if your house burns down
Sure, if you only care about compensation and not prevention. Also I don't think you've considered the practicalities of your example, in that no regular person will 1. determine the battery cause. 2. prove it. 3. bring a successful suit against a corporation.
> Consider it this way: Why doesn't US customs exclude unsafe products from being imported from other countries? Consider what they would have to do to actually accomplish that.
Well... they do seize millions of products yearly. It's generally sub-$800 packages getting through. Your original point of incumbents targetting upstarts and thus forcing "burner" companies is the wrong causality. Burner companies are incentivized to specifically skirt liability and reputation. Regulating the frontend incentivizes self-policing against sub-companies designed to be dissolved.
If someone has a history, but suffers a new episode from covid, that is a medical event that should be counted.
> Regardless, even if we did go with this Spanish study, you still can't say that a 5% chance of infection is worse. You can say that a 5% of symptomatic infection is worse.
Yes you can. The mechanism for the side effect (as per your own source) is the same in both symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Recipients of the vaccine do not get respiratory symptoms, and yet can contract the (very rare) side effects.
And as for your source, the author, Dr. Joseph Wu:
> “But COVID’s worse,” he added. A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, Wu said. That’s in addition to all the other trouble it causes.