At the moment, I think that many effective altruists are spending a lot of their time doing COVID risk analyses part-time. This is for a couple of reasons: people in the EA community are more likely to have the kind of disposition that makes you want to dig into the research on COVID-19, and many EAs live in housing situations that are not always accounted for in the current recommendations (e.g. many live in the bay area where there are a lot of group houses).

There are a couple of major downsides of people doing this work themselves: it's time-costly, and it is mentally draining and stressful. It's also wasteful if a lot of this analysis work ends up getting replicated privately across many people.

At the same time, if households don't have ways of analyzing risks and deciding on acceptable behaviors, it's pretty likely that people will get complacent and make decision that put people in the house at risk, and so the cycle continues.

Here's a thing I'd like to see exist: a small group of people with relevant experience coming together to produce trustworthy COVID-19 related risk evaluations in a central place that people in the EA community can look to. This might include:

• Keeping up with the latest research on behavior risks and presenting this in a way that is easy for individuals and households to digest (e.g. fitting them into neat categories or levels of risk, comparing different risks)
• Writing weekly summaries of the outlook, progress on vaccines and treatments, etc. so that people are less likely to compulsively news search
• Creating template quarantine procedures for houses of 5, 10, 20 people, etc.
• Creating template "scenario plans" that could be used if someone gets sick, ot if infection rates rise above a certain amount in an area, etc.
• Having somewhat regular Q&As to answer questions people might have, as soliciting requests for content that people would find useful

It could also be useful to offer specific things on a contracting basis (since it probably doesn't make sense to collectively fund private information), e.g.:

• Reviewing existing house quarantine procedures or personal plans for gaps, inconsistencies, etc.
• Being on-call to run an emergency risk evaluation of a quarantine violation or to answer urgent questions

The idea is that this information would be trustworthy, up-to-date, and tailored to regions and housing situations that people in the EA community are in but that might not be taken into account by existing analyses. I think it would be relatively important that this doesn't involve giving advice, but instead involves the categorization and explanation of risks, and lets individuals and households set their own level of acceptable risk.

This would reduce the time people need to spend evaluating COVID-19 risks, it would help people to act in accordance with their own risk tolerance, it would create publicly accessible information that's available to people outside of the EA community, and it would reduce stress around COVID-19 risk analysis.

How would I do this? I'd probably have one of the EA organizations hire a couple of full time researchers who have already been looking into COVID-19 a lot and can show that their work is reliable, as well as someone who can help present this information well on a website that people can be directed to. If the project wasn't going to offer bespoke advice on a contracting basis, I might also make this a place where people can offer/request these kinds of risk analysis services. (I guess an MVP of this whole project might be for people who have done a lot of COVID-19 research to offer to do risk analysis contracting.)

People might object that this information already exists, but I haven't been able to find a place that brings it together in the way I outline here, and my hunch is that a lot of people are still spending a lot of time searching it out. But I hope people will link to such resources in the comments if I'm wrong.

Anyway, this is all just an idea that I have and perhaps I'm mistaken about its value. I'm posting here to get a general sense of whether this is something that other EAs think would be valuable, how it could be improved, ways in which it's a terrible idea, and so on.

Comments7


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Strong agree!

Our house has a custom model & "points system" for group houses that we are working as fast as we can to release legibly (constrained by most of us having full-time jobs etc.).

(Basically: quantifying different activities in terms of microcovids i.e. literal 1-in-a-million chance of getting COVID)

We are already spending our spare time on informal custom consults. We really don't want to be doing this as an ongoing "job" in the long run, but we really DO want the information to be out there to help people.

We would LOVE LOVE LOVE to train people in what we know, so they can run consults!

Please reach out to me (ideally on messenger, or my username @mit.edu) if you would like to help us turn our V1 version into something scalably usable by EAs & group houses!


In the meantime, we have a stack of sources here that feed into our microcovid estimates, which you can consult: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1pkYTQA5hR-52pUbfGqjTFR1yieocOmEj1O0RnV2x6jI/edit#slide=id.g8b0e9b222b_0_179


Creating template "scenario plans" that could be used if someone gets sick, ot if infection rates rise above a certain amount in an area, etc.

Here is Ibasho's isolation protocol, with clear criteria about what counts as "sick" etc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpWFFoUB4gULcpOZMZL4A1xdDfu-qvgSQDCFi8dXa6E/edit#


Writing weekly summaries of the outlook, progress on vaccines and treatments, etc. so that people are less likely to compulsively news search

We are already doing this and sharing on a messenger thread. Anywhere already existing that we could post them to be useful?

This sounds slightly related to something 1DaySooner is just starting, which is a risk model for a HCT, which will look at the risk of death, and hopefully also of long term disability. Ideally, it would also consider the probability conditional on rescue therapies being available or becoming available. To do that, we're focusing on a population subset, but the basis for the model is data that includes multiple ages, so extending that is easy.

It is likely that this model can be plugged into models for the other portions of the risk, isolation, etc. and it might be useful to collaborate. It's also an important project on its own, so if there are people interested in working with us on that, I'd be happy to find more volunteers familiar with R and data analysis.

Yes David, we would love to build off that risk model and include it in our group house microcovid estimates project. Knowing how to value a "microcovid" is an important step in choosing how many microcovids per year you should select as your tolerance.

This is still under very active development, but the github repository is here, and a toy version of what we'd like to produce with better estimates is here, as a Rshiny App.

(combined with other comment)

(combined with other comment)

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal