A few of us at ALLFED (myself, @jamesmulhall, and others) have been thinking about response planning for essential (vital) workers in extreme pandemics. Our impression is that there’s a reasonable chance we will not be prepared for an extreme pandemic if it happens, so we should have back-up plans in place to keep basic services functioning and prevent collapse. We think this is probably a neglected area that more people should be working on, and we’re interested in whether others think this is likely to be a high-impact topic. We decided to compare it to a standard and evidence-backed intervention to protect the vital workforce that is receiving funding from EA — stockpiling of pandemic proof PPE (P4E).
We asked Squiggle AI to create two cost-effectiveness analyses comparing stockpiling P4E vs research and planning to rapidly scale up after the outbreak transmission-reducing interventions (e.g. UV) to keep essential workers safe. Given the additional costs of both interventions could be significantly lowered by influencing funding governments have already allocated to stockpiling/response planning, we ran the model with (linked here) and without a message (linked here) to only consider the costs of philanthropic funding.
Summary result:
Considering all spending, research and planning is estimated as 34 (8.5–140) times as cost-effective as stockpiling
Considering only philanthropic spending, research and planning is estimated as 47 (23–100) times as cost-effective as stockpiling
We did not feed any numbers into the model, but the ones it self generated seemed reasonably sensible (e.g., Kevin Esvelt’s quote of $20 billion for stockpiling adequate PPE for the US falls within the $4-20 billion estimate by the model)
Prompt:
Create a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two interventions to keep US essential workers safe in a pandemic with extremely high transmissibility and fatality rates. Assess the interventions on the probability they are successful at preventing the collapse of civilization. Only include money spent before the pandemic happens as there will be plenty of money available for implementation after it starts.
1: Stockpiling elastomeric half mask respirators and PAPRs before the extreme pandemic.
2: Researching and planning to scale up transmission reduction interventions rapidly after the pandemic starts, including workplace adaptations, indoor air quality interventions (germicidal UV, in-room filtration, ventilation), isolation of workers in on-site housing, and contingency measures for providing basic needs if infrastructure fails.
Outputs:
- narrative and explanations of the logic behind all of the numbers used
- ranges of costs for the two options
- ranges of effectiveness for the two options
- cost-effectiveness for the two options
- mean and median ratios of cost effectiveness of planning vs stockpiling
- distribution plots of the cost effectiveness of planning vs stockpiling
Optional message:
Important: only account for philanthropic funding costs to make these interventions happen. Assume that governments already have pandemic preparedness funding allocated for stockpiles and response planning. This may reduce philanthropic costs if stockpiling interventions can redirect government purchases from disposable masks to more protective elastomeric respirators/PAPRs or if research and planning interventions can add their recommendations to existing government frameworks to prepare essential industries for disasters.
A few of us at ALLFED (myself, @jamesmulhall, and others) have been thinking about response planning for essential (vital) workers in extreme pandemics. Our impression is that there’s a reasonable chance we will not be prepared for an extreme pandemic if it happens, so we should have back-up plans in place to keep basic services functioning and prevent collapse. We think this is probably a neglected area that more people should be working on, and we’re interested in whether others think this is likely to be a high-impact topic. We decided to compare it to a standard and evidence-backed intervention to protect the vital workforce that is receiving funding from EA — stockpiling of pandemic proof PPE (P4E).
We asked Squiggle AI to create two cost-effectiveness analyses comparing stockpiling P4E vs research and planning to rapidly scale up after the outbreak transmission-reducing interventions (e.g. UV) to keep essential workers safe. Given the additional costs of both interventions could be significantly lowered by influencing funding governments have already allocated to stockpiling/response planning, we ran the model with (linked here) and without a message (linked here) to only consider the costs of philanthropic funding.
Summary result:
Considering all spending, research and planning is estimated as 34 (8.5–140) times as cost-effective as stockpiling
Considering only philanthropic spending, research and planning is estimated as 47 (23–100) times as cost-effective as stockpiling
We did not feed any numbers into the model, but the ones it self generated seemed reasonably sensible (e.g., Kevin Esvelt’s quote of $20 billion for stockpiling adequate PPE for the US falls within the $4-20 billion estimate by the model)
Prompt:
Create a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing two interventions to keep US essential workers safe in a pandemic with extremely high transmissibility and fatality rates. Assess the interventions on the probability they are successful at preventing the collapse of civilization. Only include money spent before the pandemic happens as there will be plenty of money available for implementation after it starts.
1: Stockpiling elastomeric half mask respirators and PAPRs before the extreme pandemic.
2: Researching and planning to scale up transmission reduction interventions rapidly after the pandemic starts, including workplace adaptations, indoor air quality interventions (germicidal UV, in-room filtration, ventilation), isolation of workers in on-site housing, and contingency measures for providing basic needs if infrastructure fails.
Outputs:
- narrative and explanations of the logic behind all of the numbers used
- ranges of costs for the two options
- ranges of effectiveness for the two options
- cost-effectiveness for the two options
- mean and median ratios of cost effectiveness of planning vs stockpiling
- distribution plots of the cost effectiveness of planning vs stockpiling
Optional message:
Important: only account for philanthropic funding costs to make these interventions happen. Assume that governments already have pandemic preparedness funding allocated for stockpiles and response planning. This may reduce philanthropic costs if stockpiling interventions can redirect government purchases from disposable masks to more protective elastomeric respirators/PAPRs or if research and planning interventions can add their recommendations to existing government frameworks to prepare essential industries for disasters.