We at 1Day Sooner posted recently about scoping a campaign to push for an accelerated rollout of the newly approved R21/Matrix-M malaria vaccine. The vaccine was recently prequalified by the WHO, a key step on the critical path to vaccine distribution, but much remains to be done. 

We greatly appreciate the more than a dozen people who reached out to help after our last post. Their work was invaluable for producing our December Malaria Vaccination Status Report, the development of which has been critical to improving our understanding of the problem. Our colleague Zacharia Kafuko's op-ed as well as Peter Singer's on the subject are also both good sources for further reading.

We plan to publish a new status report every month and maintain a rolling public comment version to reflect our latest understanding of the issue and use as a sort of global workspace to share the most critical information about obstacles and enablers for widespread distribution. To make our research work for this more sustainable we're moving to a pool system where members sign up for at least four days out of the month where they will be assigned a 1-2.5 hour research or writing task to update and improve our status report document. Pool members will be paid $100 per pool day. (Here is a punch list of the type of goals we have for our next draft. Further details on the pool structure can be found here.). 

We are looking to add 5-10 new pool members for January beyond those who signed up last month. If you're interested in helping, please fill out the google form linked here [edit: we have received a large amount of interest and are pausing sign ups for the moment].

Questions and comments are very welcome. Thanks!

 

 


 

41

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

What's the timeline you're after for firm committal? I might be interested but need to prioritise what I'm do long over the next 2-3 months so would not be able to commit immediately.

A month at a time so just January at this point

OK, I can't commit right now, but I'll look out for if you're advertising again for February (or feel free to get in touch with me). Good luck, great project!

This sounds like a great project! I am not sure if the Op-Ed venues have already been finalized. But I wanted to flag this as a possible venue for an op-ed/policy brief-type entry as FAS seems to have a lot of federal policymakers as their audience - https://fas.org/accelerator/innovations-for-global-development/ Also, this particular idea page might have USAID, USDA, etc. as the audience, not sure if that's a good target but just wanted to flag it.

Hi Josh, apologies if this was detailed elsewhere, but do you have any skills you're after for pool members? I'd be keen to help out if you thought I could. 

Thanks for your interest! I've copied a description of the pool work below to give a better sense, but basically it's mostly research tasks that are like "research how vaccine distribution (not purchasing doses) is normally funded for new vaccines and write a 3-5 paragraph summary)" or "take a 3-5 paragraph summary someone wrote and create 3-6 sentences of suggested text to include in the status report" or "cite-check a section of talking points to make sure all the facts mentioned have citations and that those citations actually support the facts." 

Overall, we're very much in a "more the merrier" stage and would love your help. 

Here are more details on the scheme:

 

Plan for a Pool System to Handle Research/Talking Points 


 

Our talking points are intended to be a live, continually updated document representing our best understanding of malaria vaccination and how to improve rollout. In a sense it is intended to be a “global workspace” for our campaign thinking, where new research on key questions is inputted and accurate and relevant information about vaccination is shared across the campaign. Stylistically the talking points are intended to emphasize brevity, simplicity, and ease of use by a general audience.


 

To create a manageable process to continually update and improve the document (i.e. by executing this rolling punch list of tasks), we propose a pool system where volunteers sign up for a five days per month where they are “on-call” and will be assigned a 1-2.5 hour task per day, with assignments going out the night before and due the following morning (e.g. a Monday pool task would go out Sunday night and be due Tuesday morning). The expectation would be pool members would ideally sign up for two 2-day blocks and one 1-day block in a month or 3-day and 2-day blocks. The blocks are so that larger tasks (3-5 hours) can be assigned over a two day period. 

 

We’d aim to have at least eight pool members and one pool manager.


 

Curated and popular this week
trammell
 ·  · 25m read
 · 
Introduction When a system is made safer, its users may be willing to offset at least some of the safety improvement by using it more dangerously. A seminal example is that, according to Peltzman (1975), drivers largely compensated for improvements in car safety at the time by driving more dangerously. The phenomenon in general is therefore sometimes known as the “Peltzman Effect”, though it is more often known as “risk compensation”.[1] One domain in which risk compensation has been studied relatively carefully is NASCAR (Sobel and Nesbit, 2007; Pope and Tollison, 2010), where, apparently, the evidence for a large compensation effect is especially strong.[2] In principle, more dangerous usage can partially, fully, or more than fully offset the extent to which the system has been made safer holding usage fixed. Making a system safer thus has an ambiguous effect on the probability of an accident, after its users change their behavior. There’s no reason why risk compensation shouldn’t apply in the existential risk domain, and we arguably have examples in which it has. For example, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) makes AI more reliable, all else equal; so it may be making some AI labs comfortable releasing more capable, and so maybe more dangerous, models than they would release otherwise.[3] Yet risk compensation per se appears to have gotten relatively little formal, public attention in the existential risk community so far. There has been informal discussion of the issue: e.g. risk compensation in the AI risk domain is discussed by Guest et al. (2023), who call it “the dangerous valley problem”. There is also a cluster of papers and works in progress by Robert Trager, Allan Dafoe, Nick Emery-Xu, Mckay Jensen, and others, including these two and some not yet public but largely summarized here, exploring the issue formally in models with multiple competing firms. In a sense what they do goes well beyond this post, but as far as I’m aware none of t
LewisBollard
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
> Despite the setbacks, I'm hopeful about the technology's future ---------------------------------------- It wasn’t meant to go like this. Alternative protein startups that were once soaring are now struggling. Impact investors who were once everywhere are now absent. Banks that confidently predicted 31% annual growth (UBS) and a 2030 global market worth $88-263B (Credit Suisse) have quietly taken down their predictions. This sucks. For many founders and staff this wasn’t just a job, but a calling — an opportunity to work toward a world free of factory farming. For many investors, it wasn’t just an investment, but a bet on a better future. It’s easy to feel frustrated, disillusioned, and even hopeless. It’s also wrong. There’s still plenty of hope for alternative proteins — just on a longer timeline than the unrealistic ones that were once touted. Here are three trends I’m particularly excited about. Better products People are eating less plant-based meat for many reasons, but the simplest one may just be that they don’t like how they taste. “Taste/texture” was the top reason chosen by Brits for reducing their plant-based meat consumption in a recent survey by Bryant Research. US consumers most disliked the “consistency and texture” of plant-based foods in a survey of shoppers at retailer Kroger.  They’ve got a point. In 2018-21, every food giant, meat company, and two-person startup rushed new products to market with minimal product testing. Indeed, the meat companies’ plant-based offerings were bad enough to inspire conspiracy theories that this was a case of the car companies buying up the streetcars.  Consumers noticed. The Bryant Research survey found that two thirds of Brits agreed with the statement “some plant based meat products or brands taste much worse than others.” In a 2021 taste test, 100 consumers rated all five brands of plant-based nuggets as much worse than chicken-based nuggets on taste, texture, and “overall liking.” One silver lining
 ·  · 1m read
 ·