Andrew Huberman· PhD
The reason was was that young people died at very low rates relative to young older people from if they got COVID and so the thing you were protecting them from was a less of a risk to them than was for older people.
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
The reason was was that young people died at very low rates relative to young older people from if they got COVID and so the thing you were protecting them from was a less of a risk to them than was for older people.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
But it seems like based on the benefit harm expectation, older people, it makes more sense to give it to whereas younger people, the benefit harm calculation runs in the opposite direction.