Matteo Pianella, Giovanni Forchini and Katharina Hauck

I want to bring to your attention an important upcoming event in Stockholm on the 19th and 20th of June 2024: The first Workshop on the Economics of Pandemic Preparedness. This two-day gathering will bring together epidemiologists, economists, and policymakers working in the field of pandemic preparedness.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a surge of interdisciplinary research on response systems and has generated new models and policy frameworks for future preparedness. Despite the significant advancements, much of this research has been siloed within different institutions worldwide, offering limited opportunities for cross-collaboration. This workshop is aimed at providing a forum for researchers to share, discuss, and synthesise their findings. Our aspiration is for these discussions to spark new ideas and partnerships.

We are particularly keen on showcasing a diverse array of research, including:

  • Innovative modelling work that integrates economic and epidemiological perspectives;
  • Policy-oriented papers;
  • Analyses focused on specific countries, including descriptive studies;
  • Retrospective evaluations of COVID-19 response strategies;
  • Comprehensive literature reviews.

We are also honoured to host two distinguished guests: Dr Edith Patouillard from the WHO and Professor Aditya Goenka from the University of Birmingham. They both produced innovative applied and theoretical research at the intersection of economics and epidemiology, and their different focus and expertise will provide fertile ground for discussions.

The workshop will be hosted at Hotel J, located in the southeast of Stockholm near the Nyckelviken nature reserve. It is a beautiful location with easy access to the city centre and the Stockholm archipelago, which is stunning in June.

If you are interested, please submit your paper or working paper via the workshop website https://www.umu.se/en/wepp/. The provisional deadline for submission is the 1st of May 2024, and the full program will be available in late May.

The event is jointly organised by Umeå University and Imperial College London's Jameel Institute.

Some references:

https://80000hours.org/podcast/episodes/cassidy-nelson-12-ways-to-stop-pandemics/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-022-00233-0

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/eclinm/PIIS2589-5370(21)00550-2.pdf

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00199-022-01468-8

3

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 27m read
 · 
(This post draws heavily on earlier writing co-authored with Jesse Clifton, but he’s not listed as an author since he hasn’t reviewed this version in detail.) Should we always be able to say whether one outcome is more likely, less likely, or exactly as likely as another? Or should we sometimes suspend judgment and say “none of the above”, that the answer is indeterminate? Indeterminate beliefs (often modeled with imprecise probabilities)[1] could have far-reaching implications for anyone who cares about the distant consequences of their actions. Most notably, we might be clueless about how our decisions affect the long-term future, if our estimates of our net effects on long-term welfare ought to be severely indeterminate. Perhaps we don’t have reason to consider most interventions good in expectation for the far future, even if we also don’t have reason to consider them bad or precisely neutral in expectation. Before we can assess the case for cluelessness concretely, then, we should see if rationality requires us to have (or “act as if” we have) determinate beliefs. Here, I’ll argue that the positive arguments for having determinate beliefs in general are uncompelling, and indeterminate beliefs motivate different decision-making procedures than determinate beliefs. That is, there’s a viable alternative to “going with your best guess”. By itself, this claim doesn’t imply large changes in cause prioritization. But in my experience, accepting that indeterminate beliefs are plausible and decision-relevant goes a long way in making the case for cluelessness compelling. Key takeaways: * The “degrees of belief” studied in this post are not, e.g., our acceptable betting odds, or a probability distribution that (along with a utility function) rationalizes our preferences. Rather, they are our basic judgments of the plausibility of different possible outcomes. And the rationality of our decisions under uncertainty depends on these beliefs. (more) * A prima facie mot
 ·  · 13m read
 · 
The following is the annual year in review post Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) publishes, cross-posted from our blog. As always, we welcome any questions or input anyone may have. We'd also like to add that we're especially grateful to the EA community: FWI, in many ways, would never have been founded and probably would not have persisted without the support the community has provided. - Tom and Haven (FWI cofounders) Message from the Cofounders In our 2023 in Review, we characterized that year as one of setup: It was the year where, more than any before, we realized that our current programs probably didn’t meet our (at that point intuitive) thresholds for further scaling. In response, we launched our new R&D Department, with the goal of developing new interventions that would warrant broader scaling. June 2023: FWI staff constructing and measuring the small ponds at our experimental site.August 2024: Those same ponds, now filled, in use for our Feed Fortification Study. If 2023 was the year of setup of a new, R&D-focused strategy, then 2024 was where we began its execution. A flawed, complicated, and messy execution certainly, but overall a promising one. In terms of program development, 2024 was the year where we: * Ran multiple studies to develop new or improve current interventions, such as our studies on satellite imagery and feed fortification. * Investigated more scalable strategies with our farm program, such as predictive models and adjusted visit frequency. * Tested collaborations with a promising partner to assess their ability to scale welfare interventions. We believe these outcomes will be significant in continuing to improve our farm program, as well as to develop new interventions, over the coming years. Another particular highlight of 2024 was formalizing FWI’s long-term vision—working in multiple lower/middle-income countries executing interventions that are scalable, cost-effective, and evidence-based—and more precisely defining what mini
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
10