All of Tobias H's Comments + Replies

I assumed that there were a large number of unknown cases and that the unknown cases, on average, had less severe consequences. But I haven't read the paper deeply enough to really know this.

Tobias H140

Quite an interesting paper you linked:

   Conventional wisdom during World War II among German soldiers,
members of the SS and SD as well as police personnel, held that any order given
by a superior officer must be obeyed under any circumstances. Failure to carry
out such an order would result in a threat to life and limb or possibly serious
danger to loved ones. Many students of Nazi history have this same view, even
to this day.
   Could a German refuse to participate in the round up and murder of
Jews, gypsies, suspected partisans,"commissar

... (read more)
2Petropolitan
I guess it was usually not worth bothering with prosecuting disobedience as long as it was rare. If ~50% of soldiers were refusing to follow these orders, surely the Nazi repression machine would have set up a process to effectively deal with them and solved the problem
3CronoDAS
I don't know if this is true, but I've heard that when the Nazis were having soldiers round up and shoot people (before the Holocaust became more industrial and systematic), as part of the preparation for having them execute civilians, the Nazi officers explicitly offered their soldiers the chance to excuse themselves (on an individual basis) from having to actually perform the executions themselves with no further consequences.
4sam
I'm not sure that focusing on the outcomes makes sense when thinking about the psychology of individual soldiers. Presumably refusal was rare enough that most soldiers were unaware of what the outcome of refusal was in practice. I think it would probably be rational for soldiers to expect severe consequences absent being aware of a specific case of refusal going unpunished.
shawnghu232

Well, a 5 percent rate of being sent to a concentration camp or combat unit isn't exactly negligible, and a further 17 percent were threatened. So maybe it's correct that these effects are "surprisingly mild", but these stats are more justification for the "just following orders" explanation than I'd have imagined from the main text.

Yeah, I got it 3 times but it's not showing up. EA man...

2RobertM
Sorry, there was a temporary bug where we were returning mismatched reward indicators to the client.  It's since been patched!  I don't believe anybody actually rolled The Void during this period.

(Not sure if I got the maths right here.)

Manifold gives two interesting probabilities:

Using the simplifying assumption that until 2050 dramatic longevity gains happen only if ASI 'solves ageing', we have:

I couldn't find a good number, but let's assume Manifold also thinks there’s a 25% chance of doom (everyone is dead) until 2050 given ASI. This leaves:

... (read more)

There also used to be a page for Preparedness: https://web.archive.org/web/20240603125126/https://openai.com/preparedness/. Now it redirects to the safety page above.

(Same for Superalignment but that's less interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20240602012439/https://openai.com/superalignment/.)

  1. For sure, but that leads to much more individualised advice of the form "If you're fine to be exposed to sun for up to 2h with SPF 50, you should not expose yourself for much more than 1h with SPF 30". The quoted section makes it seem like "You're fine as long as you wear SPF 50+ sunscreen, but SPF 45 just won't cut it.", which doesn't generalise for most individuals and their level of sunlight exposure.
Tobias H182

The linked sunscreen is SPF 45, which is not suitable if you’re using tretinoin.

Unlikely to be advice that can be generalised.

  • SPF is a measure of the reduction of UVB reaching your skin 
    • SPF 30 means 96.7% protection
    • SPF 45 means 97.8% protection
    • SPF 50 means 98% protection
    • SPF 80 means 98.75% protection
    •   There isn't much difference between SPF 45 and SPF 50+.
  • Tretinoin increases sensitivity to UV light, but the biggest factor is still the underlying sensitivity of individual skin. For some people SPF 30 may be more than enough, for others
... (read more)
9TsviBT
(IDK anything about the underlying contingent facts, but: 1. there's a large relative difference between .967 and .98; almost half as much distance to 1. If exposure is really bad, this difference could matter. 2. If there's a damage repair mechanism with something like a rate of repair, that mechanism can either be overwhelmed or not overwhelmed by incoming damage--it's an almost discrete threshold. )

I recently found a 2-hour interview with Mo Gawdat titled "EMERGENCY EPISODE: Ex-Google Officer Finally Speaks Out On The Dangers Of AI!" from 2 months ago. It has 6.5 million views which is 1 million more views than Sam Altman's interview on Lex Fridman.

I've only skimmed through it, but it seems that Gawdat frames AI developments as an emergency and is mainly concerned about potential misuse. 

I likely won't have time to actually listen to it for a while – but it seems pretty relevant for the AI Safety community to understand what kind of other extremely popular media narratives about dangers from AI exist.

I think the overall point you're making is intriguing, and I could see how it might alter my home behaviour if I considered it more deeply. But I also strongly disagree with the following:

Just about every work behavior is an example of bad home behavior

There is a bunch of "work behavior" that has been very useful – in the right measure – for my personal life:

  • Task Management – This cut down on the time I spend on "life admin". 
  • Scheduling – Reaching out with "let's find an evening to play tennis" helps me increase the number of fulfilling activities I d
... (read more)
1CrimsonChin
Agree with you that there is some overlapping tasks. If I were more precise I would say, "I believe 85% of work behavior is an example of bad home behavior, but depending on your job and other factors this has a wide confidence interval" Even if the tasks have the same name, they can look very different. For example: scheduling is something we do at work and at home but at work I use outlook and teams to schedule while at home I use text. Entire etiquette of what to do if someone proposes an alternative time, who is expected to come, what you are expected to say if you can't come. I would argue that while it's called "scheduling" in both home and work environments there are more differences than similarities between the two behaviors. This is going to wildly depend on your job, I kind of skipped over the assumption that a lot of less wrong users work in an office-like environment. I think we learn how to use tools at work like spreadsheets, to-do lists, etc that grandma would never use but we are using them to accomplish different goals than at work. I am semi-confident in this even though I haven't thought through all the tasks because I believe that the incentive structure underpinning the whole work environment leads to different behaviors. It would be an odd coincidence if despite different incentives work and home behaviors were exactly the same.
Answer by Tobias H30

DC Rainmaker does incredibly detailed reviews of sports watches. 

1mruwnik
Do you mean as a checkpoint/breaker? Or more in the sense of RLHF? The problem with these is that the limiting factor is human attention. You can't have your best and brightest focusing full time on what the AI is outputting, as quality attention is a scarce resource. So you do some combination of the following: * slow down the AI to a level that is manageable (which will greatly limit its usefulness), * discard ideas that are too strange (which will greatly limit its usefulness) * limit its intelligence (which will greatly limit its usefulness) * don't check so thoroughly (which will make it more dangerous) * use less clever checkers (which will greatly limit its usefulness and/or make it more dangerous) * check it reeeaaaaaaallllly carefully during testing and then hope for the best (which is reeeeaaaallly dangerous) You also need to be sure that it can't outsmart the humans in the loop, which pretty much comes back to boxing it in.
9Bird Concept
Hard to give a general answer, but I think 2x someone's normal salary (especially if it's cash) is usually quite sufficient to get the job done, and kind of reliably has helped me in the past when I've try to find people happy to work night shifts

Interesting. Can you give us a sense of how much those asks (offer to pay for the extra labour) end up costing you?

7Bird Concept
You mean money or social capital? 

Also: The last name is "Von Almen" not "Almen"

I always assumed that "Why don't we give Terence Tao a million dollars to work on AGI alignment?" was using Tao to refer to a class of people. Your comment implies that it would be especially valuable for Tao specifically to work on it. 

Why should we believe that Tao would be especially likely to be able to make progress on AGI alignment (e.g. compared to other recent fields medal winners like Peter Scholze)?

I've also been perplexed by the focus on Tao in particular. In fact, I've long thought that if it's a good idea to recruit a top mathematician to alignment, then Peter Scholze would be a better choice since

  1. he's probably the greatest active mathematician
  2. he's built his career out of paradigmatizing pre-paradigmatic areas of math
  3. he has an interest in computer proof-checking.

That said, I'm quite confident that Scholze is too busy revolutionizing everything he touches in mathematics to be interested in switching to alignment, so this is all moot.

(Also, I recogn... (read more)

3AlphaAndOmega
While I too was using Tao as a reference class, it's not the only reason for mentioning him. I simply expect that people with IQs that ridiculously high are simply better suited to tackling novel topics, and I do mean novel, building a field from scratch, ideally with mathematical precision. All the more if they have a proven track record, especially in mathematics, and I suspect that if Tao could be convinced to work on the problem, he would have genuinely significant insight. That and a cheerleader effect, which wouldn't be necessary in an ideal world, but that's hardly the one we live in is it?
Tomás B.*110

I always assumed that "Why don't we give Terence Tao a million dollars to work on AGI alignment?" was using Tao to refer to a class of people. Your comment implies that it would be especially valuable for Tao specifically to work on it. 

When I've talked about this, I've always meant both literally hire Tao and try to find young people of the same ability.  

I've always used "Tao" to mean "brillant mathematicians" but I also think he has surprisingly eclectic research interests and in particular has done significant work in image processing, which shows a willingness to work on applied mathematics and may be relevant for AI work.

I must say however that I've changed my mind on this issue and that AI alignment research would be better served by hiring a shit ton of PhD students with a promise of giving 80% of them 3-5 years short term research positions after their PhD and giving 80% of those tenure afterward. I... (read more)

3Quintin Pope
Well, his name is alliterative, so there's that. (I'm being glib here, but I agree that there's a much broader class of people who have a similar level of brilliance to Tao, but less name recognition, who could contribute quite a lot if they were to work on the problem.)

[I think this is more anthropomorphizing ramble than concise arguments. Feel free to ignore :) ]

I get the impression that in this example the AGI would not actually be satisficing. It is no longer maximizing a goal but still optimizing for this rule. 

For a satisficing AGI, I'd imagine something vague like "Get many paperclips" resulting in the AGI trying to get paperclips but at some point (an inflection point of diminishing marginal returns? some point where it becomes very uncertain about what the next action should be?) doing something else. 

O... (read more)

1Tobias H
Just saw the inverse question was already asked and answered.
  • Would an AGI that only tries to satisfice a solution/goal be safer?
  • Do we have reason to believe that we can/can't get an AGI to be a satisficer?
2Yonatan Cale
Do you mean something like "only get 100 paperclips, not more?" If so - the AGI will never be sure it has 100 paperclips, so it can take lots of precautions to be very, very sure. Like turning all the world into paperclip counters or so

There has been quite a lot of discussion over on the EA Forum:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/search?terms=phil%20torres

Avital Balwit linked to this lesswrong post in the comments of her own response to his longtermism critique (because Phil Torres is currently banned from the forum, afaik):
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/kageSSDLSMpuwkPKK/response-to-recent-criticisms-of-longtermism-1#6ZzPqhcBAELDiAJhw

The whole thing was much more banal than what you're imagining. It was an interim-use building with mainly student residents. There was no coordination between residents that I knew of.

The garden wasn't trashed before the letter. It was just a table and a couple of chairs, that didn't fit the house rules. If the city had just said "please, take the table out of the garden", I'd have given a 70% chance of it working. If the city had not said a thing, there would not have been (a lot of) additional furniture in the garden.

By issuing the threat, the city intr... (read more)

1Erich_Grunewald
I think the Carpalx website was down for a spell this morning; the link didn't work for me a few hours ago, but works now. Try again?

I would guess that humans' nightmarish experience in concentration camps was usually better than nonexistence; and even if you suspect this is false, it seems easy to imagine how it could be true, because there's a lot more to human experience than 'pain, and beyond that pain, darkness'.

I can't really imagine this – at least for people in extermination camps, who weren't killed. I'd assume that, all else equal, the vast majority of prisoners would choose to skip that part of their life. But maybe I'm missing something or have unusual intuitions.

Entirely agree.  There are certainly chunks of my life (as a privileged first-worlder) I'd prefer not to have experienced, and these generally these seem less bad than "an average period of the same duration as a Holocaust prisoner." Given that animals are sentient, I'd put it at at ~98% that their lives are net negative.

Thank you! The general reasoning makes sense to me. 
This Cochrane review finds a false negative for asymptomatic individuals of 42% with antigen tests – which were not self-tests. Is your rate significantly higher because you're thinking of self-administered antigen tests?
In many European countries, you can get antigen self-tests for about $2-4 a piece, this might make a testing scheme more cost-effective.

3Connor_Flexman
Ah, stocking up on $2 tests would be awesome! That I would certainly endorse. My reasoning on antigen false negatives is coming from a few lines of evidence. Perhaps I can share some later. But in short, 1) lots of studies have found much higher than average false negative rates, so results are high-variance/heterogeneous 2) my anecdotal counts of people around me concords with the above studies 3) my prior is fairly high on studies overestimating the efficacy of tests, based on BOTH lab conditions being extra controlled and on scientists being biased toward finding higher efficacy (and this affecting studies in a real way that is hard to control for). Thus my preferred resolution of the mystery between anecdotal efficacy and average study efficacy is that studies overestimate efficacy.

Thanks for this post, it helped clarify some of my concerns about the upcoming holidays.

I'm surprised you don't mention testing (PCR or antigen).
What are your views on testing before an event?
What would be a good protocol for testing before a specific event – test on the day of, a day before?

3Connor_Flexman
Regarding timing, I think you want to test the day of. The day before is probably fine too. But Delta seemed like it was progressing fast enough that a 1-day lag would lose you a large chunk of the effectiveness. Regarding mentioning testing in general—I think it helps a little but not enough to matter in most cases. I'm under the impression that PCR tests have a false negative rate of about 50% and antigen tests 70%, which basically translates into risk of .5x and .7x for an event. But if you're home for the holidays, you'd have to keep testing repeatedly if you wanted this risk multiplier to extend, otherwise you might just develop sickness later.  So a $30 test for people only matters if you are going to an event where the average person is losing more than an hour of life, which is maybe 1000+ microcovids. I don't think this comes up super often. However, I guess it's not crazy to take 7 tests over a week to save people several days of life over the holidays. Maybe I should have added this actually. I guess it just seems like it won't be cost-effective for the overcautious people (and will be overused!) and won't be attention-effective for the undercautious people. But probably I should have thought through and been clear about this.

The triangular video almost certainly isn't a UFO anymore. 

Some guy investigated it on the ground and there's a simple explanation: skyscrapers that are illuminated. 
The videos capture a somewhat unique moment when clouds pass infront of the triangular shadow.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpjyWgjQvmc
(The most important part is at the end of the video.)

Interesting. I'm now wondering if dislike of crust is more widespread than I assumed. 
This strikes me as plausible because there is a lot of moral sentiment attached to not wasting food.
This consumer survey from Switzerland found that consumers see the crust as more indicative of bread freshness than the crumb [low quality online survey]. So maybe people are also mixing up the crust as an indicator for quality with the actual taste of the crust?

Curious: Are you from a country without very good (crusted) bread?

In Switzerland, Germany and France (that I know of) the crust is often considered the tastiest part of the bread, at least when fresh. I only know of children and elderly people not eating the crust because it's harder to chew.

1orthogenesis
  Interesting explanation, but does that hold for other foods -- do kids/adults that don't enjoy the crust because it's harder tend to also dislike other difficult-to-chew foods? Anything from jerky to raw vegetables? And those that do enjoy it, enjoy chewing other harder foods? Clearly, there are lots of crunchy/chewy foods kids are willing to eat or at least are not stereotyped as off-putting the way bread crusts are for kids. It'd be interesting to tease apart what is causing the dislike -- is it really texture, or taste or something else?
1orthogenesis
When I try to look up the question of why kids (often) don't like crusts, there is the occasional person that frames it as an "American" thing. Other disagree pointing out Brits, Europeans etc. also feel this way. But is there any evidence that this varies by country, culture or nationality? If so why might this be -- differences in type of bread/baking styles?
3habryka
I am from germany, and I don't really agree with this assessment of the crust being the tastiest part. People definitely told me that many times, but I think it does just seem straightforwardly wrong by my own taste. I do still usually eat the crust though.

I'm interested in the distinction between vegan and non-vegan ovens in your household. I've never heard about something like that. Is it because of vegans not being comfortable about using the same device or is it a "smell issue"? 

3jefftk
We live in a house that has been divided into two units, and we live in the upstairs unit. The (smaller) downstairs unit has a separate kitchen, and the two downstairs housemates are vegan. We do communal food, and I can general use the downstairs oven if I need more open space, but only for vegan things. I think it is partly smell and partly that it's rude to cook things in their oven if they're not going to be able to eat them.

I would recommend something like the Sawyer Squeeze (not the Sawyer mini) over the life straw. First of all, the normal life straw needs suction to push water through the filter, while with the Sawyer Squeeze you fill a water container or standard water bottle with dirty water and push it into a container.
Also it has a higher flow rate of almost 0.5 gallon per minute and will filter up to 100'000 gallons of water with proper backflushing (vs. 1'000 gallons with the life straw). It costs around $35 (vs $13) but you can hydrate your whole neighbourhood with enough non-drinkable water available.

Never heard of this before but tried to get a sense of it. (I'm not a teenager nor do I live in the US. This is just some background information people might find interesting.) 

It's a meme on tiktok. Helen Keller not actually being death/blind is generally the premise of a sarcastic joke. You can watch some popular examples here:
#helenkeller Hashtag Videos on TikTok

The idea that Helen Kellers ability were exaggerated has been promoted through the popular "Painkiller Already" Podcast. The comments seem quite open to the idea, but it's unclear how much ... (read more)

I've actually made the opposite experience of one commenter.

Once I tried to wash clothes in a hurry, hung them to dry and didn't get to take them down for half a day or so. I then found my clothes neatly folded on the washing machine.

Felt bad that somebody did my duties, and I wasn't even able to thank them and apologize. Because the new Waschplan is no Waschplan at all – pure anarchy!

First, what even do we mean by property? Well, there are material things that are sometimes scarce or rivalrous. If I eat a sandwich, you can’t also eat it; if I sleep in a bed, you can’t also sleep in it at the same time; if an acre of land is rented out for agricultural use, only one of us can collect the rent check.

Why do you describe property as being material things here?

Possible Nitpick:

If I understand you correctly, you use 'excludability' as a defining feature of property. As far as I understand, property comes with var... (read more)

2Vaniver
As the end of the paragraph suggests, property can also be immaterial, but I agree that sentence should be tightened up a bit. A lens on public property is that it's where the public uses its right to exclude others from taking ownership of the thing. As Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, I can't say "Sherlock Holmes is my IP!", whereas I could say that about characters I invent that aren't in the public domain. And the public domain doesn't just extend to things that are currently known; there are whole swaths of intellectual effort where society has decided discoveries cannot be patented.
The shared laundry room was, for example, what led to my very first contact with my neighbors. The very first week, a neighbor complained that I hadn't wiped water from the rubber band around the door of the washing machine and gave me a long lecture about the rules for using the shared washing machine and tumbler.

I am in switzerland and exactly the same thing happened to me.

(I'm saying this just to lend credence to apartment block politics being a real thing.)

3Martin Sustrik
More laundry stories.

[EDIT, was intended as a response to Raemon, not Dagon.]

Maybe it's the way you phrase the responses. But as described, I get the impression that this norm would mainly work for relatively extroverted persons with low rejection sensitivity.

I'd be much less likely to ever try to join a discussion (and would tend to not attend events with such a norm). But maybe there's a way to avoid this, both from "my side" and "yours".

2Raemon
Hmm, seems like important feedback. I had specifically been trying to phrase the responses in a way that addressed this specific problem. Sounds like it didn't work. There is some intrinsic rejection going on here, which probably no amount of kind wording can alleviate for a rejection-sensitive person. For my "sorry, we're keeping the convo small" bit, I suggested: The Smile Warmly part was meant to be a pretty active ingredient, helping to reassure them it isn't personal.  Another thing that seems pretty important, is that this applies to all newcomers, even your friends and High Status People. (i.e. hopefully if Anxious Alex gets turned away, but later sees High Status Bob also get turned away, they get reassured a bit that this wasn't about them)
[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Why don't you just dry them inside-out?

They dry fast and it takes no more time than clipping them onto your clips.

2jefftk
I remember having bad experiences with that, not sure why. Maybe it was that the wet surface would stick to things and the shared surface wouldn't dry?

Hm, all I can find are these small bumps in the end of January. [But I can't figure out how to attach screenshots here.] I also can't really see a plateau effect afterwards. An actual reaction, from a cursory view, only seems to happen on the 20. February. I'm not capable of saying whether these bumps show a market reaction or if it's largely noise. Looking at the time before, it doesn't seem like an unusual behaviour. [But I'm really not good at properly reading such charts, so I'd be interested in how you came to your conclusions.]

2DirectedEvolution
The steelman that VIX responded to COVID-19 in January is that it went up 40% from Jan 23-27. For whatever reason, this chart makes it easier to see the bump I'm talking about. It's not dramatic compared with the explosion in mid-Feb, but that accords with the idea that the market was unsure about whether COVID-19 was going to be a replay of SARS or something much worse, and didn't decide until the hard evidence came in of international community spread on Feb. 21.
3DirectedEvolution
Hmm, maybe you are right. I had a discussion about this in regards to another one of my posts about COVID-19 and the stock market, but now that I'm looking again I don't really see anything like what I was describing.

I think one key question, when talking about the EMH, is what we mean for an information to be available.

It's plausible, that for the public it only became clear around 27. February that Covid19 would be huge.

But it seems some experts knew much earlier. Just a quick browse on epidemiological twitter, for example, and you can find quite some instances of people expecting this not to be contained in the beginning of February. There's also the case of a swiss epidemiologist who was one of the first to warn swiss national media about Covid19 and cla... (read more)

2DirectedEvolution
Markets did react just about as soon as COVID started making the American news. If you look at VIX, which is an index of S&P500 futures volatility (aka the "fear index"), it jumped to a new, higher plateau right as COVID-19 started making the news in mid-January.

I wasn't sure whether it was the right place to post, as I myself didn't feel able to judge how useful it really is. Thus I didn't feel comfortable having it as a shortform post.

Here's a tool to estimate how badly hospitals will be overfilled in your community.

http://scratch.neherlab.org/

It's by Richard Neher and colleagues and an early stage tool. Might nevertheless be interesting to play around with.

Here's the source and some explanations about the underlying model:

https://twitter.com/richardneher/status/1236980631789359104

3ErickBall
Unfortunately it doesn't let you modify the assumptions about disease severity or number of undetected cases. It assumes that the majority of cases have been undetected (which seems questionable) and that 4.31% of cases are severe (which seems low even if the majority are undetected). It gives a case fatality rate of 0.97%, which doesn't seem to depend on any of the other parameters. In their baseline scenario (for a small Swiss city with good infection control) 0.26% of the population dies. With no infection control this goes up to 0.76% of the population dying, with no change in the CFR. If you also increase the length of a hospital stay from 10 days to 20 days, the total number of deaths actually decreases slightly because the spread is slower. So while the graph is a nice way to see how long hospitals will be overwhelmed in different scenarios, it doesn't show you anything useful about how this affects outcomes. I would love to be able to add in some parameters for fatality rate for severe and critical cases with/without a hospital bed.

Richard Neher and others created a tool to explore scenarios for hospital demand in your community:

http://scratch.neherlab.org/

It's still in early stages. Source: https://twitter.com/richardneher/status/1236980631789359104

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply
3Matt Goldenberg
Curious why this was retracted. Do you not think the tool is useful?

Just as a small piece of evidence:

I've read an interview of a patient released from a swiss hospital. She isn't allowed to leave her appartment but can spend time in her garden and is allowed to recieve deliveries (there was no specification about how deliveries are done). This points towards the doctors not being very concerned about aerosolized infections.

2gwillen
Worth keeping in mind: The goal of public health authorities is not zero transmission events. Rather, it is keeping the R value -- the number of new infections per person -- below 1, and as low as practical. From that perspective, what they want to do is eliminate the primary routes of spread, rather than all possible routes. (And I suspect this is what they mean when they say things like "asymptomatic carriers are not a major driver" -- not that you can't get infected from them, but that their R value is comfortably below 1, so from a public health perspective they aren't critical. The pandemic can be stopped without addressing them.)

1. Iran isn't especially warm at this time of year. Temperatures were between -2°C and 12°C this february.

3. There's loads of 'liberal' measures that governments can take to change the distribution of cases over time. Many of the estimates epidemiologists give are explicitly for scenarios without countermeasures. (For example, the estimate that 10% of the population will be infected at the peak of the epidemic.)

Maybe you've already done this:

Write a list of the names of everyone that attended. This way if any attendee turns out to have been infected you have a better chance of containing it within some section of your community.

This advice may be individually rational but seems generally quite bad from a social point of view. Don't stockpile a medicine because you think the public health system will run out of it. Same goes for stockpiling a large number of surgical masks. I've heard that hospitals and institutions in Italy already fear running out of them, and masks are crucial in these places.

The case might be different for people with high age or a preexisting condition that puts them in danger.