Hide table of contents

As part of Draft Amnesty week. I would do more in-depth research if this creates valuable discussion that warrants further investigation!

I went to EAG in the Bay Area and wore an N95 mask. There were not many of us wearing masks, despite it being near the peak of one of the worst flu seasons in the US in two decades. And we're all used to wearing masks already from COVID. Sure, you're tired of wearing masks, but think of the cost-benefit.

Why did I wear a mask? 

I don't want to get sick. I have gotten sick after 4/7 EAGs I have gone to. I am fairly certain from whom I got it in two cases. It sucks! I'm tired of getting sick 

The costs of wearing a mask: the cost of the mask + the inconvenience + the lost social benefits from facial expressions. 

How can these be overcome? If you want to take it off for a 1:1, you can do that away from the crowd or go walk outside, if the weather allows. If you have to take it off for a talk or for tabling for an event, you can do that! It's not mandatory. 

On the other hand: 

The cost of getting sick is high! Let’s say you’d get sick for a week on average. 

If I value my work week at a simple $1000 for the money I make, not even accounting for the impact, it's about $1 to wear a mask and prevent potentially losing $1000 of income. 

For me, getting sick 4/7 times means if wearing a mask reduces my chances of getting sick even by 50%, the EV is that I’ll save $285 for wearing a mask.[1] Not including the costs associated with suffering, caretaking, potential costs of getting someone else sick & continuing a chain of illness, etc. 

If other people wear masks, it reduces your need to, if you can't wear a mask. Especially in large crowded spaces, we should be doing this at conferences! 

I saw at the end of the EAG, we were giving away boxes of masks. I didn't see those available during the conference. I would love if it were more openly available. This could be my shortcoming in not noticing them.

I encourage you to wear a mask when you can at EAGs. One of our cause areas is pandemic prevention. This is part of that as well. Thank you :)

Thanks to Finan Adamson and Caitlin Walker for quick review

  1. ^
    1. Expected cost without a mask:

      (47)×1000=40007≈571.43(74​)×1000=74000​≈571.43

    2. Expected cost with a mask:

      (414)×1000+1=(27)×1000+1=20007+1≈285.71+1=286.71(144​)×1000+1=(72​)×1000+1=72000​+1≈285.71+1=286.71

      Courtesy of AI

20

5
8

Reactions

5
8
Comments13


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

$1 cost seems like a big underestimate of the cost to me. Aside from the discomfort being able to see people's lips is useful in a loud environment.

I think nasal sprays are a more cost-effective solution.

I think I buy the premises here that being sick/getting sick is high cost and happens a lot at conferences, but I also think the cost of wearing masks is pretty non-trivial. I wonder if there are some 80/20 approaches to masking that can cover a lot of ground with lower costs. E.g., wearing a mask on transit on the way, as people also get sick/pick up bugs from planes/transit. Similarly, norms of not shaking hands, using air purifiers, or having more walking meetings all seem pretty cheap/easy to implement.

I think nasal sprays are a more cost-effective solution.

Last I checked, the evidence for efficacy of nasal sprays was iffy (in part due to a paucity of unbiased studies and some questionable methodologies). I'm not opposed to the idea of using selected sprays on a very low risk of harm / uncertain benefit calculus, but -- unless the evidence base is significantly better than I recall -- then I think we should be careful to clarify that this intervention isn't in the same evidentiary ballpark as the one OP recommends.

Sure, $1 is an underestimate. It's just the cost of the mask. Though it's harder to estimate the costs of discomfort / sound / seeing faces. How do we account for that? 

IMO Nasal sprays seem like a higher friction option, because you have to actively use it multiple times throughout the day. Masks, you can put on & leave on & people are familiar with it. Maybe it's easier than I imagine & everyone could be spraying their nostrils every hour every day of EAG. 

If nasal sprays were cost effective (which I don't think they are), why don't we offer them at conferences and tell people to use them? 

Similarly for zinc lozenges. Those are evidence-based at reducing cold duration & preventing cold onset. Why don't we offer these at EAGs? 

(Not saying you're the one who is responsible by replying to your comment)

One could at least try to estimate their personal cost of wearing a mask by considering the following: 

Suppose my chance of getting sick at EAG was 0%. How much would someone have to pay me to wear a mask? 

If we're talking about the entire conference, I think I'd need to be paid at least a few hundred dollars.

How about only during large group gatherings? So talks, workshops, & while getting food. 
You can take it off for 1:1s and anything else. 

Is it a very different cost? 

For me this would be a way lower cost, yes. But it's very contingent on what the workshops are like. Just listening to someone speak and a Q&A? I'd do it for like $10. But if it's speed meetings or anything with significant face to face interaction I'd need to be paid more.

FWIW I can't recall ever having gotten sick after going to a conference. I might get sick less than average though. I agree that you should definitely wear a mask if you have >50% odds of getting sick without one.

Thanks for sharing. The estimated benefits seem plausible for the average attendee to me. On the one hand, I suspect most people are at significantly lower risk of significant illness transmission than you believe yourself to be. On the other hand, the value of eliminating one week of an average EAG participant's work-preclusive illness is probably more than $1000. (A conservative estimate of that value would consider the total cost of employing the individual, not just their direct salary -- and that is often at least 2x the employee's salary.) Although the median infection will cause less than a week's incapacitation, productivity-reducing symptoms can last for a while even if the risk of long COVID is estimated as low. You could also count added value from reducing the risk of getting other people sick, not just the reduction in risk to the mask-wearer.

As Larks mentioned, there are some meaningful non-economic costs to consider. There's always the option of selective usage (e.g., yes during a presentation at which you aren't speaking, no during a 1:1) to mitigate some of the non-economic costs. You may have accounted for at least some degree of non-usage when you specified that mask usage "reduces my chances of getting sick even by 50%," though. Your analysis might be more robust at a ~30% reduction to accommodate more periods of non-use. 

I suspect the harder questions on a cost-benefit assessment would be between various flavors of "sometimes mask" rather than just no mask or all mask. It would also involve considering alternative mitigation measures such as testing. It sounds like you're more susceptible than most and have a favorable cost/benefit profile; people who have new onset coughing or sneezing are likely to have one as well. 

I would say that outside of conferences, I am less likely to get sick than most people I know. 
However, EAGs and conferences in general are like the first week of uni or day care. It's a breeding ground for infectious diseases from all over the world!

I think everyone's risk of getting sick at events like this are higher than their normal risks of getting sick & the fact that this is a high risk area should be taken into account. 

Intuitively, it's all been very clear (to me, at least!) - but thanks for spending time on making those calculations. An extra argument to convince sceptics is always useful.

 

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism