Thanks for this, I think this is a useful intuition to get across and appreciate the “peak defense vs trough defense” handle for the idea.
Medical countermeasures (e.g. vaccines): for prioritizing survival, one might focus on ensuring a countermeasure can be successfully developed at all, rather than ensuring that existing countermeasures can get fast regulatory approval or widespread distribution.
I think the rest of the post touches on this at various points, but to make it explicit in one place, my claim would be that:
To focus on survival, one might focus on ensuring a countermeasure exists and can be produced, stored and administered in ways that are robust to supply chain disruption, lack of specialist medical personnel, and other symptoms of partial or total societal breakdown.
The hypothesis is that if we were to succumb to a biological risk to the point of causing an existential catastrophe, it was because we entirely lacked some capability, rather than because we had some partial capability that wasn’t widespread enough.
Yes and no.
To avoid a worst-case pandemic scenario, only two defenses are needed: effective PPE and a global pathogen surveillance system. Effective PPE (elastomeric respirators) has been readily available for decades (although better PPE like cheap PAPRs would be nice to have!). Surveillance systems aren’t up to snuff yet, but efforts (like consumer-oriented nanopore devices) are underway to improve them.
The biggest problem with this defense strategy is that it’s unclear whether enough governments and individuals can be convinced to stock up on respirators and practice using them before a civilization-ending pandemic hit. Apparently, this pandemic and the threat of future pandemics just isn’t enough to motivate people to solve this problem. This fact alone dramatically raises the risk of civilizational collapse in the not-too-distant future.
...hazmat suits....
Those things aren’t needed, because respirators would be enough to block aerosols, which seem to be the only method of transmission that can cause a pandemic.
Medical countermeasures.... Geographic quarantine....
It should be assumed that that stuff will fail in a worst-case scenario.
Thanks for this, I think this is a useful intuition to get across and appreciate the “peak defense vs trough defense” handle for the idea.
I think the rest of the post touches on this at various points, but to make it explicit in one place, my claim would be that:
To focus on survival, one might focus on ensuring a countermeasure exists and can be produced, stored and administered in ways that are robust to supply chain disruption, lack of specialist medical personnel, and other symptoms of partial or total societal breakdown.
Does that sound right to you?
Thanks! And yes, this seems right to me.
Yes and no.
To avoid a worst-case pandemic scenario, only two defenses are needed: effective PPE and a global pathogen surveillance system. Effective PPE (elastomeric respirators) has been readily available for decades (although better PPE like cheap PAPRs would be nice to have!). Surveillance systems aren’t up to snuff yet, but efforts (like consumer-oriented nanopore devices) are underway to improve them.
The biggest problem with this defense strategy is that it’s unclear whether enough governments and individuals can be convinced to stock up on respirators and practice using them before a civilization-ending pandemic hit. Apparently, this pandemic and the threat of future pandemics just isn’t enough to motivate people to solve this problem. This fact alone dramatically raises the risk of civilizational collapse in the not-too-distant future.
Those things aren’t needed, because respirators would be enough to block aerosols, which seem to be the only method of transmission that can cause a pandemic.
It should be assumed that that stuff will fail in a worst-case scenario.