All of Håkon Harnes's Comments + Replies

It's unclear to me why you think the procurement of tanks would demonstrate more of a closeness to the US than any other weapons system purchased from the US? It's a weird kind of trade-off indeed if they can choose between the US-made patriot launchers (as you suggest) or the US-made Abrams tanks, and they go for the tanks despite a clear military inferiority? I honestly don't follow the reasoning here.

Hi JKitson!

Thanks for posting this summary and analysis, I learned something new about the Taiwanese military today!

In the post you write this about the procurement of new tanks:

These units would be highly vulnerable and are of questionable use in a scenario where the enemy dominates the air. Ukraine has disabled thousands of Russian tanks and infantry fighting vehicles using drones, showing armoured vehicles vulnerability even in a situation where neither side has air superiority.

While it is true that drones, among many other factors, have made armoured v... (read more)

1
JKitson
5mo
Hi Hakon,  Thanks for your comments. It's true that both Russian and Ukrainian forces have continued to use armor, but Taiwan has limited funds available to re-equip its forces, and these should be better spent trying to acquire more anti-air capabilities to give its existing tanks and other forces more survivability or more drones to threaten any Chines armor that is able to land.  All militaries struggle to not fight the last war, but to spend $2 billion on American tanks I think it strongly suggests that procurement decisions are being spent on demonstrating a closeness with the US that is not worth the trade-off. 

Thanks for the great work you guys in AMF are doing!

20 million cases of malaria averted is a staggering number. I'm Norwegian, and as a comparison point those 20 million cases are being averted for around half the cost of the new Oslo public library. Admittedly it's a very nice library, but I have a feeling we would not be building it if it meant every Norwegian citizen had to suffer through malaria 8 times over and something like 80 000 mostly young children died.

Let's keep pushing the global resource allocation in a slightly more sane and equitable direction. Thanks for an inspiring post, best wishes for 2024!

I liked the talk. I also loved the boots! Great job.

Ah, yes, the CORS policy would be an obstacle. It might be possible to contact them and ask to be added to the list.

This is a neat tool!

Just a little heads up for people in terms of privacy. If you use the built-in helper to place your bets, your API key is sent to the owner of the manifolo service. I've glanced over the source code, and it does not seem to be stored anywhere. It's mainly routed through the backend for easier integration with an SDK and some logging purposes (as far as I can tell). However, there aren't really any strong guarantees that the source code publicly available is in fact the source code running on the URL.

I have no reason to doubt this, but i... (read more)

2
Will Howard
9mo
Good point, this is worth considering :) I tried to do this initially but it was blocked by Manifold's CORS policy. I was trying to keep everything in the frontend but this and the call to fetch the authenticated user both require going via a server unfortunately. Also something else to note in terms of privacy: I log the username and the amount when someone places a bet. It doesn't need the API key at all to calculate the recommended amount, so for people concerned about this you can just paste the amount into Manifold

I absolutely love that it infers resolving dates from the text! I was positively delighted when the field populated itself when I wrote "by the beginning of september". This is especially important on mobile.

Excited to see if this is a useful tool. Very polished, nice work!

Saving someone a google search hopefully:
XDRTB = Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis
MDRTB = Multi drug-resistant tuberculosis

Seems like it's my week of learning a bit about tuberculosis! What's up with the acronyms in the tuberculosis-space anyways? TB isn't that much shorter than tuberculosis.

4
Jon Servello
1mo
The Global TB Dictionary has been released ahead of World TB Day 2024: https://tbdictionary.org/ The search function could be a little more sensitive, but otherwise it's a good resource. I also wish I knew the reasoning behind using all these acronyms. Maybe it's just by virtue of its age, being isolated in 1882 -- 142 years is a lot of time to accrue terminology...

I did a little more digging, and through a WHO report referenced by the Gates Foundation in their article, I think I've found something that could be the source of the claims in the report I skimmed.

Portnoy, A., et al. (2022). The cost and cost-effectiveness of novel tuberculosis vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: a modelling study. medRxiv, 2022.05.04.22274654. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.04.22274654

Interestingly, the baseline scenario assumes a vaccine price similar to you, around 5 USD per dose in a 2-dose regiment, which in my naive... (read more)

"In the report I've referenced they project around 12-14 billion USD for vaccinations from 2027 to and including 2030, summing to around 50 billion. And this is assuming the vaccine has been developed. They put another 10 billion on top for vaccine R&D." 

- Where did you get that from?" I couldn't find the 10 billion figure for R&D I thought that was part of their total.

 

Thanks for pointing out I forgot to mention where I got that from! It's from Table B. Resources needed to accelerate R&D of new TB tools, 2023–2030, page 15 in the rep... (read more)

Indeed, inspiring stuff!

I have no idea what's needed in terms of production costs, distribution costs etc. but it's an interesting back of the envelope calculation nevertheless. 

In the report I've referenced they project around 12-14 billion USD for vaccinations from 2027 to and including 2030, summing to around 50 billion. And this is assuming the vaccine has been developed. They put another 10 billion on top for vaccine R&D.

This is what they write in the report:

Adequate funding must be mobilized to support the manufacturing, procurement and dist

... (read more)
2
NickLaing
10mo
Thanks you've put some effort into reading that article nice one. From what I could see it lookked to me like they were looking at the total cost of developing and rolling out a new vaccine. "In the report I've referenced they project around 12-14 billion USD for vaccinations from 2027 to and including 2030, summing to around 50 billion. And this is assuming the vaccine has been developed. They put another 10 billion on top for vaccine R&D."  - Where did you get that from?" I couldn't find the 10 billion figure for R&D I thought that was part of their total. I don't think they had this far cheaper situation mind which has already been developed and now "just" needs phase 3 tryial and manufacture/distribution. Also plans are already underway to minimise costs in an Indian factory. Costs vary wildly with vaccines - for example the covax vaccine was more like 5 dollars a dose (which I used as my figure here), wheras Moderna and other RNA vaccines were closer to 20. That's a factor of 4 already. I'd imagine the Gates foundation will do a decent job of keeping prices down, who knows maybe even by a factor of 5-10x compared with if it was manfactured commercially in say America. The article doesn't talk much at all about they get their numbers which is a little annoying.

Talking from my time in EA NTNU, my experience was indeed the complete opposite. Funding and follow up from CEA was excellent, kind and thoughtful. There were virtually zero strings attached and at no point did I feel like they were controlling.

The feelings of other organisers might differ of course, but I've not heard about this from anyone personally, and I did talk to quite a lot of student group leaders around 2017-2019.

Again, this is just my experience.

Very cool! 

Seems like this is an investment related to the Global Plan to End TB, 2023-2030. Over the period they call for ~250 billion USD in funding[1]. They state that in the status quo scenario we lose 234 million DALYs[2] to TB. It's a little hard to get the exact number, but looks like they aim to reduce this by around 50% over the period as a whole (?). Around 2 000 USD per DALY on average, which is a fair bit higher than what GiveWell cites for their top charities. I should note that some of the costs are in R&D which will pay dividen... (read more)

7
GiveWell
9mo
Hi, Hakon, We were very excited to learn of this trial, a much-needed step toward reducing deaths from tuberculosis. We applaud Gates and Wellcome for this sizable commitment of resources, which is, as Nick points out, necessary to gain adequate information about the vaccine's efficacy, but beyond the reach of most funders. We have investigated TB-related funding opportunities, and we remain very open to funding either programs or research. However, we have several significant uncertainties about the programs we've explored so far and have not yet funded any at scale. We are working on a report summarizing the evidence for mass TB screen-and-treat programs, which will provide more detail on our views specific to that type of program. Best, Miranda
8
Jamie_Harris
10mo
Just wanted to thank you and NickLaing for this exchange. I'm planning to use an adapted version of the thoughts/considerations as an example of estimating expected value in some resources I'm creating!   Working on a new, more effective TB vaccine: Cost per life saved? * About 50% of phase 3 trials are successful. So 50% chance of the rollout being possible * Being conservative on The Economist’s optimistic estimate of 10 million lives saved, let’s reduce it to [BLANK 1]. * So 0.5 (probability) x [BLANK 1] (lives saved) = [BLANK 2] lives saved in expectation. * The trial is $550 million to open up this opportunity, then let’s estimate vaccine production and distribution costs $5 per person.  * There are about 7 times as many TB cases as deaths, but the vaccine is maximum about 50% effective, and they’ll have to vaccinate way more people than currently actually get TB. So let’s guess that they need to vaccinate [BLANK 3] people to save the [BLANK 1] lives * [BLANK 3] million x $5 = $[BLANK 4] in distribution costs. * $0.55 billion (trial costs) + $[BLANK 4] (distribution costs) = $[BLANK 5] * $[BLANK 5] (cost) / [BLANK 2] (lives saved in expectation) = $[BLANK 6] per life saved in expectation
8
NickLaing
10mo
Great comment thank you! I would say this vaccine work could be far more cost-effective than the average spending on the global plan to end TB. Because of the nature of the disease (long follow up, long expensive treatment), TB costs so much money to treat and follow up compared with other diseases. Lets have a go at some Napkin calculations for potential vaccine cost-effectiveness?! About 50% of phase 3 trials are successful, so that's easy to adjust for. So 50% chance of the rollout being possible Being conservative on their optimistic estimate of 10 million lives saved, lets reduce that by 80% to 2 million. Each life saved could be equivalent to 20 DALYs averted, given TB kills a lot of older people as well.  Remember here though we haven't included DALYs of those who were saved from suffering but wouldn't have died from TB so I think that makes this quite conservative. TB is unlike malaria in that because its a long and hard to cure disease suffering is a huge factor - I would imagine average suffering for the average person who doesn't die TB might well be over 1 DALY (it has probably been calculated somewhere) So 0.5 (probability of trial success at current 50% prevention rate) x 20 (DALYs averted per life saved) x 2,000,000 (Lives saved) = 20,000,000 DALYs 20 million DALYS averted in the next 25 years (Not before 2030 mind you). The trial is 550 million dollars to open up this opportunity, then I'm going to pretty randomly estimate vaccine ends up costing $5 per person (not sure how many doses are needed or production) to produce in the Indian factory like they have planned and distribute. If they vaccinate 500 million people that's estimated 2.5 billion in distribution costs. I could have massively over/underestimated the cost here. So 3 billion dollars all up, to prevent 20 million DALYs $3,000,000,000 (cost) / 20,000,000 DALYs That's an EV of about $150 a DALY, closer to GiveWell. And this might look much better value after suffering for non-death

I've been involved with Gi Effektivt for many years, which is the Norwegian version of what you are suggesting here. There are many effective giving orgs all over Europe, and more to come, which focus on this area exactly. In NL Doneer Effectief is probably the dutch version you are referring to?

We've been surprised to see how much people care about tax deductions, especially outside the core EA movement. I think I disagree that tax deduction are a large part of what makes a donation effective, as our main claim to effectiveness lies in the interventions t... (read more)

There is often quite a large gap between what these kinds of surveys seem to imply and actual voter behaviour. We see this in climate change all the time. Consider the recent survey that reported that over half of young people think humanity is doomed (with regards to climate change) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58549373.

Yet we are not seeing a huge surge in support for european green parties.

I'm not sure what's going on with these surveys, but it's an interesting comparison.

5
Leon_Lang
1y
This is not necessarily contradictory since European green parties do not always improve on the climate situation. E.g., they tend to be very opposed to nuclear energy even though it might be quite helpful to combat climate change.

To echo the general sentiment, I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation for this talk. I found it warm, inclusive and positive. Thanks!

The examples you provided are fine alternatives :+1:

Interesting, I have the exact opposite intuition! I think calling Eirik a co-founder of EA in Norway is simply a descriptive factually correct statement. He was one of two people that started the first EA group in Norway that subsequently grew into the community it is today.

On the other hand, I don't like to think that the movement has any leaders. It's a community of widely varying views and approaches, united by common values. Actually, EA Norway, which is  the closest you'll find to a formal organisation for EA in Norway, is a democratic membership... (read more)

I think it's perfectly fine to call someone the founder of EA Norway—an organization—but I continue to believe it is inappropriate to call them the founder "of the Norwegian EA movement". I don't share your intuition that starting the first EA group in a region makes you the founder of the EA movement in that region. For example, I started the first LW group in the Spanish-speaking world but it would be bizarre to call me the "founder of the Spanish-speaking rationalist movement".  Expressions that seem more appropriate to me to convey what I take "fo... (read more)

I also generally found this podcast encouraging and Sam is an eloquent speaker.

I did however find his characterisation of conventional philanthropic organisations rather strange. He highlights perverse incentives in that organisations would not really want to solve the issue they are ostensibly working on, as it would put them out of business. Although perhaps true in a strict theoretical sense, and there may be some unconscious / systemic drivers of this type of behaviour as well, it seems a very odd thing to focus on. This isn't even what differentiates ... (read more)

We are working on all the strategies you mention in Norway. There was recently a report posted on the potential of CSR (which I imagine is what you mean by "workplace giving") in Norway (http://effective-altruism.com/ea/1js/project_report_on_the_potential_of_norwegian/).

There is also work being done in political action, both on improving the efficiency of our substantial foreign aid budget (~4.4 billion USD in 2017) and some preliminary work on prioritization of future generations.

0
David_Moss
6y
By workplace giving I had in mind things more like outreach in workplaces, payroll giving etc. (see Charity Science's old report on this: http://www.charityscience.com/uploads/1/0/7/2/10726656/workplace_giving_report_pdf.pdf). CSR would fall under what I referred to as nudging companies. (I did read the earlier report on CSR in Norway btw, and had forwarded it to a colleague working on CSR and EA).