Francis

Karma: 193

Francis 27 Jun 2025 6:26 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Lizka’s comment on: Lizka’s Shortform
Update: this user returned to the Forum again under a new account, which we have banned. Bans affect the user, not the account.

Francis 18 May 2025 5:27 UTC
7 points
1 ∶ 0
in reply to: Linch’s comment on: Linch’s Shortform
As far as I can tell, the direct effects of the order are only about drug pricing in developed countries, despite the phrasing. The text of the executive order states (bolding added):

Sec. 5. Establishing Most-Favored-Nation Pricing. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and other relevant executive department and agency (agency) officials, communicate most-favored-nation price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations.
The reporting I’ve seen on the EO that has said anything explicitly in either direction has also suggested that it would only apply to drug pricing in developed countries—e.g. here’s the AP:
Trump’s executive order establishes a “most favored nation” pricing model should drugmakers not voluntarily lower costs. This means that the U.S. would peg the cost of prescription drugs to the lowest prices in comparably developed countries.
Here’s a post expressing concern about the potential effects on low-income countries, which still asserts that this particular order is only about drug pricing in developed countries:
In essence, the order seeks to peg the price U.S. health plans and patients pay for a medication to the lowest price a drug company offers to countries with similar income levels or development status. [...]
Although, thankfully, the order does not apply MFN provisions against low-income countries, it could inspire other nations to adopt similar clauses, especially middle-income countries, leading to serious consequences for global health systems.

Francis 26 Jan 2025 5:01 UTC
72 points
13 ∶ 0
on: Francis’s Quick takes
Update (January 28): Marco Rubio has now issued a temporary waiver for “humanitarian programs that provide life-saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter and subsistence assistance.”^[1]
PEPFAR’s funding was recently paused as a result of the recent executive order on foreign aid.^[2] (It was previously reauthorized until March 25, 2025.^[3]) If not exempted, this would pause PEPFAR’s work for three months, effective immediately.
Marco Rubio has issued waivers for some forms of aid, including emergency food aid, and has the authority to issue a similar waiver for PEPFAR, allowing it to resume work immediately.^[4] Rubio has previously expressed (relatively generic) positive sentiments about PEPFAR on Twitter,^[5] and I don’t have specific reason to think he’s opposed to PEPFAR, as opposed to simply not caring strongly enough to give it a waiver without anyone encouraging him to.
I think it is worth considering calling your representatives to suggest that they encourage Rubio to give PEPFAR a waiver, similarly to the waiver he provided to programs giving emergency food aid. I have a lot of uncertainty here — in particular, I’m not sure whether this is likely to persuade Rubio — but I think it is fairly unlikely to make things actively worse. I think the argument in favor of calling is likely stronger for people who are represented by Republicans in Congress; I expect Rubio would care much more about pressure from his own party than about pressure from the Democrats.
1. ^
  https://apnews.com/article/trump-foreign-assistance-freeze-684ff394662986eb38e0c84d3e73350b
2. ^
  My primary source for this quick take is Kelsey Piper’s Twitter thread, as well as the Tweets it quotes and the articles it and the quoted Tweet link to. For a brief discussion of what PEPFAR is, see my previous Quick Take.
3. ^
  https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/pepfars-short-term-reauthorization-sets-an-uncertain-course-for-its-long-term-future/
4. ^
  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pause-applies-all-foreign-aid-israel-egypt-get-waiver-says-state-dept-memo-2025-01-24/
5. ^
  https://x.com/SenMarcoRubio/status/1141694696135245824

Francis 1 Oct 2023 17:46 UTC
11 points
3 ∶ 8
in reply to: Felix Wolf 🔸’s comment on: The Lighthaven Campus is open for bookings
Posting highly sensitive personal information, such as street addresses, is not allowed on the Forum. Although this is the address of an organization’s campus, rather than a specific individual, it can nonetheless pose a risk to those using the campus.

Francis 25 Sep 2023 4:11 UTC
8 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: Peter Hickman’s comment on: Shrimp: The animals most commonly used and killed for food production
I’m also confused about this. I found a paper^[1] that estimates the annual amount of shrimp paste produced in China at 40,000 tons, and says that China is the largest shrimp paste producer in the world. The spreadsheet states that ~251,093 tons of A. japonicus were caught in the wild in 2020, so depending on what proportion of shrimp paste is produced in China^[2] and how many tons of shrimp are needed to make one ton of shrimp paste, this could be accurate?
1. ^
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0023643822010313 .
  I have low confidence in this estimate because I looked at the paper it’s citing and don’t see that number anywhere in there.
2. ^
  I did a cursory search for information about shrimp paste production in other countries and couldn’t find any numbers, but I didn’t look very hard and it’s possible you could find more accurate information.

Francis 25 Sep 2023 2:26 UTC
32 points
6 ∶ 1
on: Francis’s Quick takes
PEPFAR, a US program which funds HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment in the developing world, is in danger of not being reauthorized.^[1] (The deadline is September 30th, although my current understanding is that even if the House of Representatives misses the deadline, it could still be reauthorized, there would just be a delay in funding.) Over the course of its existence, it’s estimated as saving ~25 million lives^[2] for a little over $100 billion, and my current understanding is that (even if the lives saved number is an overestimate) it’s one of the most cost-effective things the US government does.
I think it might be worth calling your representative to encourage them to reauthorize PEPFAR, particularly if they’ve indicated that they’re uncertain of how to vote or might vote against it. My main uncertainty here is that I’m not sure how likely calling your representative is to actually change their mind, but I suspect this is fairly tractable compared to most forms of lobbying since it’s literally just asking them to reauthorize a program that already exists (as opposed to asking them to pass a new law, majorly change how a program works, etc.)
1. ^
  https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/05/president-emergency-global-aids-program-00113796
2. ^
  https://www.state.gov/pepfar/ (note that some sources think this is an overestimate—e.g. the comments section here thinks it could be more like 6 million as a low estimate, which would make it not competitive with GiveWell top charities, though still way more cost-effective than a lot of things the US government does (and I currently don’t expect that if the program were eliminated the money would be redirected to something more cost effective))
What links here?

Francis 21 Aug 2023 7:04 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Price-, Taste-, and Convenience-Competitive Plant-Based Meat Would Not Currently Replace Meat
Hi Jacob! This report mentioned a couple of times that consumers don’t necessarily believe plant-based meats are taste-competitive with animal meats, even if they are specifically instructed to consider situations where they are. Do you know if there’s any research into whether “taste tests” of theoretically-taste-competitive plant-based meats increase subsequent demand for plant-based meats (and/or decrease subsequent demand for animal-based meats) for participants in the taste tests?

Francis 15 Jan 2023 4:47 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: OscarD🔸’s comment on: Shallow Investigation: Arsenic Remediation
Thanks Oscar! I really appreciate you catching that. I’ve revised the post to reflect the more accurate statistics.
With regards to your question, the sources I found seemed to mostly describe adsorption as a relatively simple process—e.g. Nicomel et. al. specifically highlighted “easy operation and handling” as a major advantage of adsorption (and gave that as a reason for why it has been commonly used in the past).

Francis 30 Jan 2022 11:14 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Announcing a Student Essay Contest on The Precipice
Rules clarification: are current undergraduate students who will be graduating prior to the June 15th deadline eligible, provided that they submit their essay before they graduate?

Francis 29 Oct 2021 6:16 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Jackson Wagner’s comment on: [Creative Writing Contest] Jump
Hi Jackson! I chose to set this story in an (admittedly very science-fictional) future civilization for a couple of reasons:
1. I was trying to write a story that a random person with no familiarity would find interesting enough to actually read. I think most people would be pretty unlikely to read a story if it were billed as “two people talk about their jobs,” and much more likely to read a story about a spaceship pilot.
2. Part of the point of the story is that the analytic frameworks of effective altruism aren’t just applicable to our time period, but can (at least in theory) be applied anywhere with the opportunity to do good.