Scott reflects on how COVID-19's massive death toll of 1.2 million Americans has been overshadowed in public discourse by more controversial but less significant aspects of the pandemic. Longer summary

Five years after COVID-19, Scott Alexander reflects on how public discourse focuses on controversial aspects of the pandemic (lockdowns, masks, vaccines) while largely ignoring its staggering death toll of 1.2 million Americans. He points out this is the highest-fatality event in American history, surpassing the Civil War by 50%. Scott suggests this blind spot comes from two factors: dead people can't advocate for themselves, and controversy sells better than tragedy. He draws parallels with charity discourse, where controversial stories overshadow the actual lives saved. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the trade-offs between accuracy and liability in medical information, extending the analysis to public health experts and the role of expertise in society. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the challenges of providing accurate medical information online, using his own experience with a psychiatry database and comparing it to WebMD. He argues that larger, more legitimate sources like WebMD and government agencies often provide less useful information due to liability concerns and political pressures. The post then extends this analysis to public health experts like Dr. Fauci, suggesting that while they may not always provide the best advice, they serve an important role as 'legibly mediocre' sources of information in a complex system. Scott concludes that while the current system of expertise is flawed, it's better than alternatives and deserves some appreciation. Shorter summary