Great link, helpful indeed, thank you.
(Way better than Scientific American’s unnuanced dismissal of RCTs / “hierarchy of evidence” in general.)
If anyone happens to ever read this post in the distant future… I’d like to say, my “side point” at the end of this, was poorly thought out / poorly written / unkind.
Also, this post as a whole could have been framed a little better. I see some ‘background’ ideas that I could have included for better context, for one.
But in general I think it’s better to leave up eh writings than delete it, so I’m not going to edit or delete this.
Appreciate that you got me thinking slightly more hopeful about AI, in your anecdotes that built into your last paragraph. Thank you!
As a side note, I also appreciate your quick point… about men possibly being disproportionately affected by some incoming negatives. -- I am worried about our current misunderstandings of male distress; and how these already existing problems could be exacerbated by AI, as you mention. Thanks for bringing this up.
If you are not liking that one study, because it doesn’t do a risk-benefit for both sides… then just refer to the other studies I link more prominently to, which do.
If you think it is “terrible reasoning” to not do a risk-benefit of both sides, before making explicit or implicit statements… we are certainly on the same page… This is my issue with EAG’s recommendation.
Handstands are not in the same ballpark as hospitalization for permanent heart damage. Perhaps I take this more seriously because I know people this happened to. Just like I also know people who died from covid. -- Let’s keep on top of the available risk-benefit basics, and realize that the situation today is much different than 1, 2, and 3 years ago. Also, yes, this is just a little fine-print statement from EAG, but I see the same statements and logic elsewhere, it seems embedded.
Thank you Monica for taking some time out of your day to engage with me and my ideas and links, and for keeping an eye on the viewpoints we have in common, our similarities. I appreciate you. And I think you are making good points.
That’s cool. Thanks for letting me know Eli.
I think it’s better in the less specific wording you changed it to.
On the other hand, I think the updated statement would be best interpreted as, a recommendation to get double-vaccinated AND boosted. Which I don’t think there is evidence for, personally.
But what do I know, I’m not a particularly well-educated EA. And I could certainly be wrong.
In other words: I do think the wording now is better; but you probably shouldn’t care too much what I think anyways :P
(Fwiw, I did also just mention in separate comment, I was a little too combative ((especially at the end)) in tone. I need to do a separate post on these “side thoughts” with much more nuance and evidence. And with the overarching theme being that I love EA / CEA, EA people, etc.)
I first thought it’s a slight improvement, as it’s a little less specific.
On the other hand, I believe being “up to date with WHO-approved vaccines” probably is best interpreted as being double-vaccinated AND boosted. Which I disagree with more than the original phrasing.
I don’t see even slight evidence that this is a good recommendation, certainly not for healthy young men… but even for other demographics as well. (keeping in mind natural immunity backdrop, and recent vs old strains backdrop… and then comparing slight risks both ways)
(Also, I agree with you, that my “side thoughts” at the end were a little combative, and need further exploration and evidence, and thus may have been better suited for a separate post. Good point.)
I agree with you, that it may be, that the benefits of vaccination outweigh risks, for population as a whole. Please also narrow in to my actual point, which is that for large demographics, it’s not a good idea to now get double-vaccinated. Whereas, EAG recommends all attendees to get double vaccinated. (Or at least they did; they seem to have changed their wording just now as a result of this post.)You want to talk about other demographics, or even the population as a whole? Let’s do it, as an additional topic. As I don’t see good risk-benefit analysis, with general background of natural immunity, etc, for other age groups. And am curious to know more. Although, again, this would be a separate topic from what I am stating above.
The countries that have advised against double-vaccination, in my link, were advising against Moderna, which indeed is an mrna vaccine. Think you need to click that link.
″ It slows down transmission ”—this was definitely true in the past. I’m not sure if someone with natural immunity (almost everyone), who now gets double-vaccinated, will be substantially slowing down transmission, over what they were already doing. Source needed.
“It also reduces severity of symptoms for those who are vaccinated and go get the virus”—even for the 90% of people who have natural immunity… the oldish formula, double-vaccination will do this today? I don’t disbelieve you. But again, source needed.
The booster article: I understand your point on mandate vs. recommendation. Mandates would certainly be much worse. The main point here is just that it’s probably wise to NOT mandate OR recommend, for all demographics.
Bro they just changed that statement now, seemingly from me posting this? Idk.
https://web.archive.org/web/20221222171814/https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ea-global/events/ea-global-london-2023″we recommend attendees to be double-vaccinated with WHO-approved vaccines.”
I linked to a variety of studies, which show that basic risk-benefit calculation says: for large demographics, do NOT get double vaccinated in current times. Please be specific about what I am posting that is “wildly unscientific.”
Yes one of my linked studies was specific to teenage boys. My other links include men 30 and under etc. In either case, we’re talking about large demographics of millions of people that shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, and which certainly cover EAG attendees. I’m not sure why you would zoom to just one of my sources on teenage boys, although I did think that was important to note as well. I would like to see these risk-benefit frameworks for other age groups as well, for current times. And which include basic background info like natural immunity.If you have links to any info like this I’m interested. These are just the good risk-benefit studies I could find personally.
The Free Press link at the end, I included only as a concise thru-way to a variety of other studies.I don’t think you read it; you seem to believe it has the exact opposite conclusion of what you are implying it does. At least, I have no idea what you are getting at with your analogy.
We may have different definitions of “not particularly dangerous,” but this is my least important point and I’m happy to let it go.
As expected, this is getting more downvotes overall, at least for now.
I hope to get some feedback as to what specific nuances anyone thinks I am missing.
“Existential Risks scholars might find it attractive to put an office inside the Chicxulub crater ;)”
^That is a great idea.
Yucatan is beautiful, and additionally seems a ripe place for EA to gain beautiful perspective from. Didn’t know all this. Thanks to all of you, for writing up this nice piece.
Miranda, (stumbled on these 3 posts of yours, when searching up a different post. )Big props for putting an important idea to practice in real life. You rock !!!
LOVE this post. The Julia Wise one you link to is my fav. And now this is an excellent pairing for that. I will be sure to share when I see people doing what you describe, or worrying about it, which will be sooner than later !!!
Thank ya Thomas!!
Thank you Amber !
I am using the same language here, that I present this project to the media and to others with. I thought this would be beneficial. You are seeing the same thing that the general public sees. Except (I hope) with a lot of background info and links to explain my thinking.
My language in that is not weaselly because it links to a page that shows exactly what I’m stating. It’s indeed, widely regarded, as one of the most effective charities in the world. By (as the linked page shows) The Life You Can Save; CharityWatch; Great Nonprofits; GuideStar; Charity Navigator. Do you have any evidence that Fistula Foundation is NOT widely regarded to be one of the most effective charities in the world? Maybe you don’t think it is one of the most effective? But it’s widely regarded to be, and by some prominent and well-regarded third parties.
Your link here is exactly my same link that I put; I think you missed that. Yes I agree, that it may not be an upper elite ranked charity. And that’s why I linked to the same page. However, within this link that we both posted, they do state: “We think that Fistula Foundation may be in the range of cost-effectiveness of our current top charities. However, this estimate is highly uncertain for a number of reasons.” It seems to be well within a good range of high effectiveness. But if you are a stickler for elite effectiveness only, a great case can be made for that, to NOT donate to them, and fair enough. We seem in general agreement here. I’m not sure what I’m stating that’s false. It did not make the GiveWell cut after they looked into them. I agree.
+ I am in no way whatsoever affiliated with Fistula Foundation. Why do you think so? If you are going to donate less to them in the future, based just on the wording of this post from a random person you don’t know, and not based on the evidence of the work that they do, I’m not sure your reasoning on that.
+ I do hope you join me in skinny dipping on this day. I’m not sure why it’s ‘pandering’ for me to say that. However, if you don’t want to, that’s all good too!Thank you for writing back your thoughts. Helps me to get the idea of why I am getting downvotes. I do hope to get some feedback on the project itself outside of the wording, if anyone has any ! Thank you again!
Oh yes. Here is the one piece of publicity we received last year: