OP’s claim of inadequacy of EA London COVID measures lacks an objective “effectiveness” measure. It criticises a lack of clarity of the EA measures while lacking any clarity itself.
I am stressing this as this same problem applies to public policy in many countries. Australia is a severe case: its extremely harsh travel policy seems based on the premise that either the virus and its innumerable variant mutations will simply go away or that Australia can remain in perpetual lockdown without serious negative socioeconomic consequences on the medium and long term.
For a proper decision (even just at EA Lonon) we would need a collective forecast of the objectively measured number of participants who will be infected/severe cases/die at EA London with the current policy and conditional on the one proposed by OP. Step 2 would be a vote in full knowledge of the forecast consensus and distribution. Prediki Prediction Markt offers free use of its platform for such “effectiveness” purposes. While this would be an effort, it might be well worth it, as a showcase to the world (and Australia) on how to decide such matters objectively and “effectively”.
I don’t understand how Australia’s travel policy is relevant. I’m not asking for anything particularly unusual or onerous, I just would expect that a community of effective altruists would follow WHO guidelines regarding methods to reduce the spread of COVID. I honestly don’t understand the negative reaction.
A cynical person might see your post as asking CEA to do extra work for very little potential gain, because most people involved in EA are already pretty careful about Covid. So I guess that’s where the negative reaction could be coming from—it sounds like you don’t trust individual EAs or the event organizers to e.g. use hand sanitizer unless it’s been written down somewhere that people will use hand sanitizer.
OP’s claim of inadequacy of EA London COVID measures lacks an objective “effectiveness” measure. It criticises a lack of clarity of the EA measures while lacking any clarity itself.
I am stressing this as this same problem applies to public policy in many countries. Australia is a severe case: its extremely harsh travel policy seems based on the premise that either the virus and its innumerable variant mutations will simply go away or that Australia can remain in perpetual lockdown without serious negative socioeconomic consequences on the medium and long term.
For a proper decision (even just at EA Lonon) we would need a collective forecast of the objectively measured number of participants who will be infected/severe cases/die at EA London with the current policy and conditional on the one proposed by OP. Step 2 would be a vote in full knowledge of the forecast consensus and distribution. Prediki Prediction Markt offers free use of its platform for such “effectiveness” purposes. While this would be an effort, it might be well worth it, as a showcase to the world (and Australia) on how to decide such matters objectively and “effectively”.
I don’t understand how Australia’s travel policy is relevant. I’m not asking for anything particularly unusual or onerous, I just would expect that a community of effective altruists would follow WHO guidelines regarding methods to reduce the spread of COVID. I honestly don’t understand the negative reaction.
A cynical person might see your post as asking CEA to do extra work for very little potential gain, because most people involved in EA are already pretty careful about Covid. So I guess that’s where the negative reaction could be coming from—it sounds like you don’t trust individual EAs or the event organizers to e.g. use hand sanitizer unless it’s been written down somewhere that people will use hand sanitizer.