This man is claiming that staying at home increases deaths... He's also claiming a vaccine could be years away.
I also see zero evidence as to why he should be considered a credible source for effective covid treatments. The man is an economist at a university. Am I looking at the wrong Robin Hanson?
The key argument is that there is lots of uncertainty, but variolation is probably worth trying. And if volunteers can be found, why not? One shouldn't need to be a virologist to credibly make that argument.
Just to clarify further - the man cites nothing but his own blog articles but makes sweeping statements as though they are fact. This is speculation on medical approaches for an understudied virus by a man totally unqualified who feels it unnecessary to inform his audience as such.
He's an economist, sure, and is proposing an idea that others can consider and, perhaps, study. I am not looking to this blog post as a source of treatment ideas but instead as a source of ideas.
I've been reading about the importance of the viral load in survival against this disease. His proposed variolation approach is one I've personally considered. Much like families of old had chicken pox parties for their kids, the idea of just getting this over with as safely as possible has some appeal.
Yet it is an approach out of favor for good reason. For most diseases the risk can be significant and historically we've been able to improve survival via quarantine and treatment. This disease is apparently harder to quarantine due to a long latency period and asymptomatic cases. And we have no effective treatment for the worst cases.
It is interesting however to consider that for patients inoculated with preliminary vaccine, it is considered unethical to give a "challenge dose" of virus, while this guy proposes doing so for those with no protection whatsoever. I can't get past that, and am too risk averse to try his idea even in a carefully controlled setting. I'll keep wearing my mask, washing hands and wait it out for now.
There is hope that we will discover a variant of this disease which is less dangerous. In that case I think the approach he recommends is more reasonable.
He is not a credible source on this, or pretty much anything else. He has some utterly reprehensible views, and is part of a very questionable cult of self-important people.
One thing to point out is that, as the wikipedia article makes clear, variolation refers explicitly to inoculation with smallpox. What he is proposing is literally just a really mediocre vaccine. Instead of killing or weakening the virus, or expressing subunits to build immunity against, hes suggesting just vaccinating with the normal live virus. And by exposing to a very low dose, it might not even be enough to trigger a strong enough immune response to generate long term memory against the virus, since we're already seeing people with little or no antibody response after getting sick. So of course wed need a rigorous, well run trial to evaluate this, at which point what's the advantage compared to a well made vaccine again? You don't get to have lower standards for your vaccination approach because you call it something else incorrectly.
When he shows any semblance of Skin in the Game and gets inoculated with the virus, then I will think about listening to him.
There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs.
> There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs
This is trivially false, as people accept money for health risk every day (see: working in medicine, transportation, mining, leaving your house, etc.)
It's a global pandemic. We all have skin in the game whether we want to or not. Unless you're suggesting that before writing a blog post, he should do some amateur virology and variolate himself, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to say Robin Hanson would see this implemented and then not be among the first volunteers, I think you don't know Robin Hanson.
> There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs.
Hard disagree based on experience. The clinical testing of many drug classes are entirely dependent on many people being too uneducated or desperate to consider those types of risks.
beepboopbeep|5 years ago
I also see zero evidence as to why he should be considered a credible source for effective covid treatments. The man is an economist at a university. Am I looking at the wrong Robin Hanson?
skosch|5 years ago
The key argument is that there is lots of uncertainty, but variolation is probably worth trying. And if volunteers can be found, why not? One shouldn't need to be a virologist to credibly make that argument.
tinus_hn|5 years ago
beepboopbeep|5 years ago
How else can one describe fraud?
jimmyswimmy|5 years ago
I've been reading about the importance of the viral load in survival against this disease. His proposed variolation approach is one I've personally considered. Much like families of old had chicken pox parties for their kids, the idea of just getting this over with as safely as possible has some appeal.
Yet it is an approach out of favor for good reason. For most diseases the risk can be significant and historically we've been able to improve survival via quarantine and treatment. This disease is apparently harder to quarantine due to a long latency period and asymptomatic cases. And we have no effective treatment for the worst cases.
It is interesting however to consider that for patients inoculated with preliminary vaccine, it is considered unethical to give a "challenge dose" of virus, while this guy proposes doing so for those with no protection whatsoever. I can't get past that, and am too risk averse to try his idea even in a carefully controlled setting. I'll keep wearing my mask, washing hands and wait it out for now.
There is hope that we will discover a variant of this disease which is less dangerous. In that case I think the approach he recommends is more reasonable.
DagAgren|5 years ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson
DagAgren|5 years ago
[deleted]
vikramkr|5 years ago
rglullis|5 years ago
There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs.
kauffj|5 years ago
This is trivially false, as people accept money for health risk every day (see: working in medicine, transportation, mining, leaving your house, etc.)
inimino|5 years ago
arrosenberg|5 years ago
Hard disagree based on experience. The clinical testing of many drug classes are entirely dependent on many people being too uneducated or desperate to consider those types of risks.