“But those guys almost definitely aren't conscious”. Based on what?

I find that the simplest argument against the shrimp welfare movement is that if the same reasoning is applied to demodex mites or nematodes you could easily come up with expected value calculations that prove that every pursuit of humanity is irrelevant in comparison to the importance of our finding a solution to the suffering of these microscopic organisms.

Reduction ad absurdum, therefore these expected value calculation Fermi estimates are probably not a complete and or maybe even useful approach to ethics.

I can’t see where you’ve mentioned the case numbers, which seem to be quite low.

Wikipedia says:

2008, more than 50 cases/year were reported from only 4 countries: Turkey, Iran, Russia and Uzbekistan

From 1995 to 2013, 228 cases of CCHF were reported in the Republic of Kosovo, with a case-fatality rate of 25.5%.[24]

Between 2002–2008 the Ministry of Health of Turkey reported 3,128 CCHF cases, with a 5% death rate

Understanding that there are a few hundred rather than thousand or million cases of the disease around the world annually is important context because it makes it more difficult to fight cost-effectively

Haven’t heard of this one before though, thank you

A big fear that drives concern about euthanasia is that we’ll end up in a world where people who don’t really want to die will feel pressured to kill themselves because they don’t want to be a burden on the health system or their loved ones.

Moral arguments like this one are the exact sort of thing that’s stopping euthanasia from being accessible in the cases where it would be clearly good (e.g. end stage terminal cancer causing severe pain)

Disappointing

The post suggests that 4 person-years of “careful analysis” will find “promising funding opportunities in this space”.

Development economics does that careful analysis already, why would we make breakthroughs reinventing it?

I believe that Seva and the Fred Hollows Foundation (Both in The Life You Can Save's top charities list) both do distribution of eyeglasses.

On this page Fred Hollows says they distributed 154,476 pairs of glasses in 2023: https://www.hollows.org/what-we-do/our-impact/

Seva distributed 59,005 pairs of glasses in 2023 according to their annual report. The first page of the report is a picture of a 10 year-old who got a new pair of glasses!: https://www.seva.org/site/DocServer/Seva_annual_report_2023.pdf 

That assumes that “further research” will reduce these confidence intervals significantly, which I am skeptical of.

You could fund 1000 PostDocs for 1000 years each to study “why is there something rather than nothing” or “is one person’s perception of blue the same as another’s” and it’s no given that you’ll get closer to an answer.