@paulportesi @nntaleb People that get the bad end of a Tail Event seem blind to the risk they took by choice, even after it hits. People who think things through, are risk and process aware and thus not hit as bad byTail Events are seen as lucky.

— António Martins (@AntnioM13665295) July 20, 2020

This is true. Hedging in good times is seen as foolishness, and when you need your hedge and make use of it, you are seen as “lucky.” Capital preservation is more important than capital gains. Means nothing if you make 900% and then get wiped out five years later.

A mask cuts your COVID-19 risk by 65%, experts say.

Remember when fucking mook “experts” said a mask offered no protection to the wearer? I do.

See also: Masks offer much more protection against coronavirus than many think.

I knew this months ago because I read the fucking papers. Could “experts” not have done the same thing?

Usually I don’t do this but I am completely out of patience so feel free to pile on this jerkwad (who I will now block, so take me off any replies)

P.S. niqab is better protection against COVID-19 than traditional western wear. Better prevention for skin cancer, too. https://t.co/PqL3k8vU6Q

— Lady Lakdawalla of Baltis Vallis (@elakdawalla) July 20, 2020

I have no idea what the original tweet said, but you know the West is utterly fucked when you have “feminists” defending the niqab and government terrorists in vans kidnapping protesters in Portland.

Can feminists really not see how and why the niqab differs from a facemask for prevention of the pandemic? Are they being willfully ignorant or….? I just don’t get it.

The probable future is all women dressed like beekeepers, anyway. This seems to be what feminists want, for some reason. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Thanks @VirusesImmunity – we need to keep explaining this #COVID19 #vaccines point loud and clear to counter some very authoritative sounding misinformation that's doing the rounds… https://t.co/Sh3VSSsjrw

— Danny Altmann (@Daltmann10) July 19, 2020

Ex-fucking-actly. I see “experts” saying that because someone (might?) have gotten re-infected, a vaccine cannot work.

Hoc non erat demonstrandum.

Vaccines can work through all sorts of methods. I see most people (even experts) talking about only one type of immunity (antibody) and ignoring all sorts of other nuance and possibilities. I’m not saying any of those will work, necessarily, just that it’s very poor logic that because one vaccine path is less likely, the dozen+ other possibilities suddenly also become impossible. That’s not how it works. Here is a link to to the top of that thread.

We need better experts, is what I know.