explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2395: Covid Precaution Level

2023-01-27T23:19:55Z

141.101.107.83:

The problem is precautions that ARE insufficient feel excessive to many people and precautions that are excessive FEEL insufficient to many others - and science seems to be unable to provide definitive answers to replace "feelings" with logic [[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.104|162.158.126.104]] 23:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
: To paraphrase Rumsfeld: "You fight a pandemic with the knowledge you have, not the knowledge you want". You place far too high a burden on science. Science, logic and expertise are by far the most useful things we have, but the answers they give are going to be phrased as "probably", "perhaps", "more likely than not", and "we don't know". And the answers are going to change as we learn things. Expecting immediate, definitive answers has killed many people.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.65.149|172.68.65.149]] 19:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

To save the person(s) effort who will ultimately write this into the explanation/transcript in a legible manner: There are 13 subdivisions in Insufficient, 14 subdivisions in Excessive, roughly (close enough to look deliberate, but sloppily so) 6 divisions shared, across a scale of 21 effective divisions. Enjoy! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.158.155|162.158.158.155]] 00:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The title text reminds me of why I hate shotgun shooting vs. rifle or pistol -- with a rifle or pistol, you can see your misses and correct your aim and/or technique. With a shotgun, it's hit-or-miss with no other feedback.
:(The above edit [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:2395:_Covid_Precaution_Level&oldid=202884 at this point] was inserted improperly with a duplicated ip/timestamp rather than the four tildes, for whatever reason. Just wanted to point this out. I'm fairly sure other comment additions were similarly sloppy, but this one was obvious.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.82|141.101.98.82]] 19:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I wonder what is meant by the title text exactly, is the one kind of feedback you can get getting the disease? The way it is phrases it feels like "dying from covid" is the final feedback (you can only get it once and then it's too late). But just getting infected is already some feedback isn't it?

[[User:Flekkie|Flekkie]] ([[User talk:Flekkie|talk]]) 03:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:The title text says ''definitive'' feedback, which I took to mean deaths. Numbers of those infected isn't inherently definitive as the precautions might affect how or if they recover. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.152|162.158.255.152]] 05:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:I interpreted the title text as referring to contracting COVID. The point of the precautions is to keep from contracting it: if you do contract it, that's definitive feedback that your precautions were insufficient; and once you're already infected, it's too late to do anything to prevent that infection. If COVID is like most other diseases (and I'm not sure if anyone knows for sure whether it is or not), then once you've had it once, you won't be able to contract it again, thanks your immune system having built up a resistance to it. --[[User:Someone Else 37|Someone Else 37]] ([[User talk:Someone Else 37|talk]]) 05:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:: It is not. It is definitely possible to get COVID-19 again, although it is probably much less likely. There are documented cases of someone recovering and then being reinfected, including at least one in which they DNA tested the virus to confirm that it really was a separate infection and not a recurrence of something that had been in remission.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.35.126|172.69.35.126]] 05:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
:::The statistics show a clear picture, it is highly improbable to catch Covid again, the remaining cases are of course bad for the individual, but completely insignificant on the large scale of a global epidemic. --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.156|162.158.92.156]] 22:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

: FWIW I also didn't figure out what feedback he meant. There's all sorts of usable feedback to use, but any change in precautions takes at least a few weeks to show up in the feedback. Still, as frustrating as that is, it's not something you can "only get once but then it's too late". --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 07:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:: I think "can only get once" is supposed to be in contrast to, say, a thermostat, where you keep getting feedback until you change the settings. With COVID, once the restrictions have had an impact, you can "only get [the magnitude of impact] once but then it's too late [to measure again]". Kinda saying humans don't work well with delayed gratification. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.7|141.101.99.7]] 17:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

: C’mon people. Plainly the feedback he was referring to was infection. The only certain way to determine that you’ve been irresponsible is to be infected. [[User:Lightcaller|Lightcaller]] ([[User talk:Lightcaller|talk]]) 16:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

In many jurisdictions, the rules themselves actually are ''not'' a single linear 'diallable' level of restriction, often with schools (or even sub-ranges of schooling ages, separately) being fully opened or closed not in complete synchrony with the treatment of sporting events, retail premises, food/drink (in-house/take-away), entertainment venues, public mass-transport, etc, although this is more like the fine-tuning of a graphic-equaliser on an audio system. But for the sake of simplicity the given government/whatever then still twiddles just the master volume knob (or at least the 5.1 balancing ones for regional adjustment) as a first resort when they get feedback about their chosen mix's effectiveness. - This depicted bare-bones 'master control dial' simplification of measures echoes the apparent nature of (some bits of) the [[1620|Universe Control Console]], though, and (contradictory labelling aside) is probably how those in control of the ramp-up/down of measures ''wish'' it could be done. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.97|141.101.98.97]] 09:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what China did, but from those countries that I know anything of, none have had "excessive" precautions, all of them were in the "insufficient" range. So whose viewpoint did Randall draw here? His own? The average public? An arbitrary sample group? … [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 09:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
: Maybe not whole countries, but I know of at least one city where the precaution looks extremely excessive, but also extremely sufficient; Point Roberts, WA, which has zero cases but is prevented by border guards from visiting Canada and a two hour boat ride with medical quarantine from the United States. Also, I would place the State of Oregon, who just crossed it's 1000th COVID-19 death, just slightly to the left of the rightmost portion of insufficient- but the repeated total lockdowns are having a great cost on the economy and human behavior- murders, suicides, and bankruptcies are up greatly, but other causes of death are down.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

: Please note that this comic only mentions precautions that FEEL either excessive or insufficient. It makes no statement regarding whether any precautions actually are excessive or insufficient.

Hi - I signed up for an account here just to say - I sense an assumption on this page that this comic is about comparing different people’s feelings about covid precautions. That is certainly a possible explanation. But I think it’s quite possible that the comic could be comparing conflicting feelings within one individual. In my reading, lot of the covid comics address this kind of uncertainty (I can reference some if that would be helpful). I’m not sure if y’all will agree with this point, nor whether it merits an edit of the explanation, but I wanted to bring it into the discussion. Thanks for the good work you all put into this site!--[[User:Coy casket|Coy casket]] ([[User talk:Coy casket|talk]]) 22:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

You could remove the word COVID & I would still find this universally applicable to ''many'' types of precaution.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 23:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
:The overlap in case of covid is bigger than in many others. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I interpreted the feedback to be catching COVID, showing that you weren't cautious enough, but I am afraid that he is being optimistic about only being able to get it once. It's likely that you are resistant for a while after an infection, but some people have had it twice. Both the average duration of resistance and the effects of repeated infections are unknown to me, and I don't know how they could be known by anyone at this point. Hopefully we luck out, and/or get good vaccines soon. [[User:BlakeFelix|BlakeFelix]] ([[User talk:BlakeFelix|talk]]) 03:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
[[User:BlakeFelix|BlakeFelix]] ([[User talk:BlakeFelix|talk]]) 03:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

To whoever is doing the transcripts: check the earlier comics' transcriptions like [[1796: Focus Knob]]. This is too…conversational or whatever. [[User:Bubblegum|bubblegum]]-[[User_talk:Bubblegum|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Bubblegum|contribs]] 18:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
:I saw the current 'Transcript' when it was originally a middle bit of the Explanation (hence why more conversational?) and I'm sure checking the Edit History will reveal that it was just moved wholesale for whatever reason. I note that very few other additions were made to the main text (while the comments have multiplied manyfold since I added the second one down) so maybe I/someone should just tidy it up, correct the Transcript as you suggest and remove the Incomplete bit. I'll give it a thought, if nobody takes up that mantle... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.96|141.101.98.96]] 23:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It may be germane to quote Mike Leavitt, the second President Bush's HHS Secretary: "Anything said in advance of a pandemic seems alarmist. After a pandemic begins, anything one has said or done is inadequate.". [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.119|173.245.54.119]] 23:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That's how it feels to do security. You either get hacked or you don't. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.157|162.158.74.157]] 16:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth noting that at the time of this comic (Early pandemic) it was very uncertain quite how deadly COVID-19 was and many people were genuinely scared of dying. My interpretation here is that Randall was one of those in the way the title text is written (remember for some time 1%+ fatality rate was being thrown around).

2702: What If 2 Gift Guide

2022-11-26T23:16:12Z

141.101.107.83: added that J is also not in the periodic table

{{comic
| number = 2702
| date = November 23, 2022
| title = What If 2 Gift Guide
| image = what_if_2_gift_guide_2x.png
| imagesize = 500x878px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = BABIES OR LITERATURE BUT NOT BOTH: Baby shoes
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by an OUT-OF-CONTROL HANDHELD NEUTRINO CYLINDER FOR TEENS. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[[Randall]] is again promoting his new book, ''[https://xkcd.com/what-if-2/ What if? 2]'', and starts by explaining the kind of recipient who might appreciate it, basically anyone who is into science or anything in the Universe... So basically anyone.

Then he also gives both direct and humorously indirect instructions of how to obtain the book for them, the latter method making a jocular (but not completely wrong) presumption that almost any text-input widget leads to some relevant search-engine result. Also the entire comic is a link to the what if? 2 page on xkcd that he writes the link to in the comic. As always clicking anywhere on the image will take you there (so also if you actually click on the link).

He also suggests some other tongue-in-cheek gift ideas for several other subtypes of gift-receiver. Most of which are, in keeping with the What If ethos, somewhat dangerous or impractical. A number directly reference things previously mentioned or depicted by xkcd.

{| class="wikitable"
|+
|-
! Interest !! Gift Idea !! Explanation
|-
| Engineering || The {{w|International Prototype of the Kilogram|platinum cylinder}} formerly used to identify the kilogram || This is an object of historical relevance of which only six exist, making it a very expensive or illegal gift. With the {{w|2019 redefinition of the SI base units|redefinition of the SI base units}} in 2019, {{w|2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units#Kilogram|the kilogram}} is now defined using only natural constants rather than a physical standard. It took some time before this last SI unit was redefined, 3 years prior to this comic's release. The old prototypes are no longer as important as they were when they were actually used to define the kilogram. But they are still historical artifacts with enormous value, even apart from the value of a kilogram of platinum (about $32 000 at time of writing).
|-
| Biology || The genomes of the scientists who headed the human genome project || The "International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium," as the {{w|Human Genome Project}} team was known, involved scientists from twenty institutions in six countries. In the US, it was initially led by DNA structure co-discoverer {{w|James Watson}} who was succeeded by {{w|Francis Collins}}. In the UK, the project was led by {{w|John Sulston}}. The teams from other countries' institutions were less prominent and performed substantially less work on the initial sequencing. James Watson's genome was sequenced in 2007. The genome of {{w|Craig Venter}}, the CEO of {{w|Celera Genomics}}, was used as the exemplar for Celera’s sequence. While the “race” between Celera and NIH was declared a tie by then-President Clinton, in actuality, Celera had some 85+% coverage while NIH was about 50%.
|-
| Physics || A beam of neutrinos delivered through the earth by the LHC || {{w|Neutrino}}s interact very weakly with other particles, to the point that they almost always pass straight through matter completely unaffected. This means that particle accelerators can send neutrinos to any other point on Earth by aiming the particle beam into the ground, and the neutrinos pass straight through the Earth. This point is referenced in the What-If article "{{what if|73|Lethal Neutrinos}}". The low interactivity of neutrinos would also mean that the recipient would be unable to perceive their gift, making this a poor present for anyone except the small proportion of physics aficionados who already have a neutrino detector on-hand.
|-
| Animals || Surprise wildlife encounter (gift-wrapped box with a bobcat inside) || This is a reference to [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Bobcats xkcd's rich history of mailing boxed bobcats to people]. This gift would place the recipient in a perilous situation, and, although definitely a wildlife encounter, is not a good gift.{{Citation needed}}
|-
| Law || A vacation to that area of Idaho where you can commit crimes with impunity due to a court district boundary error || This refers to the "{{w|Zone of Death (Yellowstone)|Zone of Death}}", a 50-square-mile area of Yellowstone National Park that is in the physical boundaries of Idaho, but in the legal jurisdiction of Wyoming. Because a jury in the United States must be composed of residents of the same district ''and'' state in which the crime was committed, but no one lives in this small area of a National Park, anyone who committed a crime here could not (according to a legal theory not fully tested in the courts) receive a trial, and thus could not legally be punished for said crime in any circumstance. This is an interesting legal loophole, but going to this area does not provide any more value than hearing about it, and could scare your law-enthusiast friend.
|-
| Chemistry || A necklace of element samples whose symbols spell out the recipient's name (note: names like "Katherine" and "Brandon" may cause radiation accidents.) || Novelty necklaces are a common and innocuous gift, and using element symbols in place of the same letter is a common gimmick, such as in the title of Breaking Bad. However, making an object out of whatever element sample corresponds to someone's name could have unpredictable results - some elements in their pure form are too brittle or have too low a melting point for such an application, although placing the samples in some kind of small container could work around this problem; some are unsafe. "Katherine" would be made from Potassium (highly reactive), Astatine (rare, '''radioactive''' and has a short half-life), Hydrogen (gaseous at room temperature, flammable), Erbium, Iodine (sublimes into a gas at room temperature), and Neon (gaseous at room temperature). "Brandon" would be made from Boron, Radium ('''radioactive'''), Neodymium, Oxygen (gaseous at room temperature), and Nitrogen (gaseous at room temperature). The problems with element samples could be partially alleviated by allowing compounds rather than pure elements, but the radioactivity would still be a problem, and neon does not form compounds and as such is always gaseous. Additionally, the letters J and Q do not appear in the periodic table symbols, so a name like John or Quinn would be problematic.
|-
| Puzzles || Two goats and a new car || This is a reference to the the "{{w|Monty Hall problem}}", in which a game show contestant can win only one of the three items. (See [[1282: Monty Hall]] for another cartoon inspired by this problem.) This gift places the recipient within a puzzle which is typically discussed hypothetically, rather than happening in real life. Although many people would consider a new car a ''great'' gift, those who would appreciate a gift of a goat are more uncommon.
The problem that the recipient would have would likely be how to transport the two goats - it'd be difficult to fit both into a compact car at once, but one can't be left behind unattended (especially not with [[2348: Boat Puzzle|a cabbage or a wolf]]).
|-
| Technology || Cybiko® wireless handheld computer for teens (2000) || This is a direct callback to [[2699: Feature Comparison|one of the previous week's comics]], which humourously suggested that this device is a better option than most of the current popular communication technologies. While an interesting example of the history of communication technology and coming from a time when experimentation was common and standards were few, it isn't very useful now, because it is no longer supported, has a communication range of 100 meters (sending text messages via radio) and one can only use it to communicate with users of the same device. However, technology enthusiasts could find it interesting as a collectors' item, so by all means it is one of the most plausible gift ideas on this list.
|-
| Space || Webb telescope personal photoshoot || The Webb telescope belongs to NASA, the ESA and the CSA, and is currently very far from Earth. It is designed to capture distant space objects in previously unseen detail. If the photoshoot implies photographing a nearby human, it is not designed to do this, even if the difficulties of sending a human about a million miles to it's location could be overcome. On the other hand, if it means photographing the recipient on the earth's surface, Webb would have to point at the warm Earth and expose its optics to the Sun, permanently crippling the telescope ([https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/faqs/faqLite.html Which is forbidden by NASA.]) and it would not have sufficient resolution to make out the subject in any case. These circumstances make it a highly impractical gift, to all intents and purposes to the point of impossibility.

On the other hand, a gift experience of being allowed to take your own snapshot of Webb in position, perhaps with a [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10442913/James-Webb-Space-Telescope-seen-Earth-settles-orbit.html robotic telescope], might be an attractive gift to a space enthusiast! So might a chance to use the Webb telescope to take pictures of whatever celestial objects one chooses, as time on the Webb telescope is very carefully allocated.
|-
| Literature || Stephen King's writing desk (he's still using it so you'll have to fight him) || {{w|Stephen King}} is an author lucky enough to have legendary status while still alive. The desk of an author that has died would become an object of historic significance and would likely be either kept for exhibition or auctioned by their respective estate, but as Stephen King is still alive, he would probably object to his desk being subjected to the same.
|-
| Philosophy || Out-of-control trolley || This is another gift that places the recipient in the situations that they like discussing hypothetically. This refers to the {{w|trolley problem}}, which places stress on the person forced to make the decision, and exists to make them examine their morals. Facing someone with the hypothetical problem is already not a good gift, but [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sl5KJ69qiA forcing them to live through it in real life] is a terrible gift. (See [[1455: Trolley Problem]] for another cartoon inspired by this problem.)
|-
| Psychology || A nice gift with a note saying you don't expect anything in return || This is perhaps the most viable option on this list. This kind of gift giving could induce the Benjamin Franklin effect, causing the gift giver to like the recipient more. It could also be used to manipulate the recipient by increasing pressure to reciprocate. This would cause them stress, making it a bad gift, but a psychologist would hopefully understand it to be a joke.
|-
| (Title text) Babies or literature but not both || Baby shoes || This is a reference to the six-word story {{w|For sale: baby shoes, never worn}} which is often attributed to Ernest Hemingway. Someone with babies, such as expecting or new parents would find baby shoes as a valuable gift for their child. Someone interested in literature would see the reference to a famous work. But someone who understands the reference would possibly also be sad if they simultaneously actually enjoyed babies or have children of their own (since the story implies the seller was expecting a baby but there was an accident). So if they are into both then find another gift.
|}

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

What If? 2 Gift Guide

What if? 2 makes a good gift for anyone who's into science, absurd ideas, or just the universe in general. To order, go to xkcd.com/whatif2, or just type "what if 2" into some random box on your device; it will probably work.

Here are some other gift ideas for hard-to-shop-for science enthusiasts:

Interest - Gift Idea

Engineering - The platinum cylinder formerly used to define the kilogram 
Biology - The genomes of the scientists who headed the human genome project 
Physics - A beam of neutrinos delivered through the earth by the LHC 
Animals - Surprise wildlife encounter (gift-wrapped box with a bobcat inside) 
Law - A vacation to that area of Idaho where you can commit crimes with impunity due to a court district boundary error 
Chemistry - A necklace of element samples whose symbols spell out the recipient's name (note: names like "Katherine" and "Brandon" may cause radiation accidents.) 
Puzzles - Two goats and a new car 
Technology - Cybiko® Wireless Handheld Computer for Teens (2000) 
Space - Webb telescope personal photoshoot 
Literature - Stephen King's writing desk (he's still using it so you'll have to fight him) 
Philosophy - Out-of-control trolley 
Psychology - A nice gift with a note saying you don't expect anything in return. 

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Book promotion]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Bobcats]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Telescopes]]
[[Category:Photography]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]
[[Category:Psychology]]