I think a lot of great discussions are being had in private Google Docs. I also think that a lot of this discussion gets completely lost and/or forgotten. "Quick Takes" can act as an alternative. Arguably, this is a good place to try out smaller ideas and/or get feedback on them. Any early discussion on quick takes is arguably more useful than similar discussion with Google Comments, as it would all be public.  Personally I've been enjoying my quick take use. I feel like I could get a good amount of discussion and interaction, for the level of work I'm required to put in for the post. I might later convert some of this into full regular posts, but I don't feel a rush. I also do a lot of writing quick similar post to my Facebook account, especially if they seem like a better fit for that audience.  Likewise, I feel more comfortable commenting on other people's short takes than I do private docs, because that way it feels like my comments are more likely to be useful. With Google Docs it's easy for a lot of work to get totally ignored and then lost.  Obviously, I realize there are some good reasons/circumstances for privacy and for Google Docs. But I suspect that these benefits are narrower than some assume. Being more public has some downsides, but I think it's often possible to overcome these downsides - after which the net-upsides both personally and collectively can be significant.  This comment has gotten me to think about this, and I have a corresponding public response there with my point. 

I appreciate the curation at the top (fantastic post), but the forum is becoming a little thin on the ground for us Global Health Folks... If you've got a global health thought whether deep or shallow, please share it, at least I'll do my best to comment and engage :D.  

I was wondering, how useful would a short write up of 'Could far UVC have averted histories deadliest pandemics' be? I expect it would take me about 2-3 hours for a rough write up, rising to about 5 hours to include some meaningful graphics. I've done research into the types of pathogens and which ones are likely to be effected by far UVC, and also which have more or less chance of resistance/adulteration. E.g. if 90% of the most deadliest pandemics (e.g. top 10) in the last few centuries could have been avoided, it would signal for example some level of confidence natural pandemics would be reduced from X/S-risk if we had it, vs if only say 10% of pandemic candidate pathogens are meaningfully affected by far UVC, it points to is more as a business/sick leave cost reduction rather than meaningful government/organisational broad scope pandemic protection? I'd analyse trends in also future pathogen candidates e.g. H5, H1 (swine, avian) plus whether malicious threat actors are likely to utilise heavier/lower weight pathogens e.g. fungi/bacteria vs viruses/spores etc (but unsure if that part I will publicly post)

Buried deep in the PEPFAR Report's appendix - methodology section is a nice "introduction to global health programs" mini-article that also addresses some lay misconceptions about foreign aid and suggests a better way to think about it all in one go; it's a shame that most folks won't read it, so I'm reposting it here for ease of future reference.

A surprising number of EA researchers I know have highly accomplished parents. Many have family backgrounds (or have married into families) that are relatively affluent and scientific. I believe the nonprofit world attracts people with financial security. While compensation is often modest, the work can offer significant prestige and personal fulfillment. This probably comes with a bunch of implications. But the most obvious implication to me, for people in this community, is to realize that it's very difficult to access how impressive specific individual EAs/nonprofit people are, without understanding their full personal situations. Many prominent community members have reached their positions through a combination of merit, family/social networks, and fortunate life circumstances.