7 ms·

Robin Hanson has a been a strong proponent of this idea. If you're curious about this subject, this post is a must read: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2020/03/

by kauffj 6y ago

Robin Hanson has a been a strong proponent of this idea. If you're curious about this subject, this post is a must read: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2020/03/variolation-may-cut-covid19-deaths-3-30x.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2020/03/variolation-may-cut-co...

beepboopbeep 6y ago
This man is claiming that staying at home increases deaths... He's also claiming a vaccine could be years away. I also see zero evidence as to why he should be considered a credible source for effective covid treatments. The man is an economist at a university. Am I looking at the wrong Robin Hanson?
- skosch 6y ago
  You've got the right Robin Hanson. The key argument is that there is lots of uncertainty, but variolation is probably worth trying. And if volunteers can be found, why not? One shouldn't need to be a virologist to credibly make that argument.
  - zbjornson 6y ago
    Well, for one, orthopoxviruses cause skin lesions, replicate in keratinocytes, dermal fibroblasts and other skin cells and evoke strong immune responses there. Coronaviruses don't.
    - pmayrgundter 6y ago
      I've been looking into this.. you might be interested in my work on a Live Virus Skin Vaccine for CoV2. Comments welcome! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x91Ef7G6xbm77DcRDvjAXbFmkn6jklTf_4-U_aepDbQ/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x91Ef7G6xbm77DcRDvjAXbFm...
  - powersnail 6y ago
    I'm not a medicine professional, so I'm just curious here. Since variolation has basically the same principle as vaccination, it's hardly an alternative to vaccination. Is it really worth trying? To me (with my very crude understanding), proposing variolation as an alternative to vaccination is akin to proposing knife without a handle as an alternative to a regular knife. Is there any case where vaccination fails to work, while variolation succeed?
    - frank2 6y ago
      A vaccine is months or years away whereas variolation can be deployed right now.
      - powersnail 6y ago
        To deploy it, wouldn't it need to be tested just like a vaccine? Or is it suggested to just deploy virolation without testing?
        frank2 6y ago
        >is it suggested to just deploy [variolation] without testing? Yes: the blog post by economist Robin Hanson suggested deploying it without waiting for the results of testing. (Of course, it would be good to test as fast and as much as possible concurrent with the deployment.) "deploying it": making available to the public a variolation service or procedure designed by medical experts.
        vikramkr 6y ago
        If we're lowering the standard, why only lower it for inoculation? We can just start deploying the dozen+ vaccines we have in development too if we decide testing isn't important.
        ggreer 6y ago
        I'm pretty sure Robin Hanson would want challenge trials with experimental vaccines as well. The issue is that authorities won't allow such trials, not that there is a lack of willing medical experts or volunteers. Though vaccine trials aren't quite as safe for the public as variolation. If a vaccine doesn't work, the person can spread the disease. If variolation doesn't work, then it has the same mortality as natural infection, but afterwards the person is immune and can't spread the disease.
- jimmyswimmy 6y ago
  He's an economist, sure, and is proposing an idea that others can consider and, perhaps, study. I am not looking to this blog post as a source of treatment ideas but instead as a source of ideas. I've been reading about the importance of the viral load in survival against this disease. His proposed variolation approach is one I've personally considered. Much like families of old had chicken pox parties for their kids, the idea of just getting this over with as safely as possible has some appeal. Yet it is an approach out of favor for good reason. For most diseases the risk can be significant and historically we've been able to improve survival via quarantine and treatment. This disease is apparently harder to quarantine due to a long latency period and asymptomatic cases. And we have no effective treatment for the worst cases. It is interesting however to consider that for patients inoculated with preliminary vaccine, it is considered unethical to give a "challenge dose" of virus, while this guy proposes doing so for those with no protection whatsoever. I can't get past that, and am too risk averse to try his idea even in a carefully controlled setting. I'll keep wearing my mask, washing hands and wait it out for now. There is hope that we will discover a variant of this disease which is less dangerous. In that case I think the approach he recommends is more reasonable.
  - DagAgren 6y ago
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      Ah, RationalWiki. At least it makes Wikipedia look consistently fair and unbiased, I suppose. (Two thirds of that page read to me like "and this is why Hanson should be unpersoned")
      - DagAgren 6y ago
        What part of the article is wrong, though?
        6y ago
- DagAgren 6y ago
  He is not a credible source on this, or pretty much anything else. He has some utterly reprehensible views, and is part of a very questionable cult of self-important people. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson
  - pizzazzaro 6y ago
    Sounds to me like a Neoliberal Economist taken to the logical conclusion.
  - jimmyswimmy 6y ago
    Meh. I have never heard of him before, but he has a clearly expressed idea which isn't completely unreasonable. I evaluated the idea on its own merits, and that's where I found it lacking. The man matters nothing to me, only his idea. I submit that this is the only reasonable way of evaluating ideas. We can't all be perfect for all time in history. Edit. Having now read your link, I am less interested in following his blog, but my analysis of his proposal is unchanged knowing more about him.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  So are you claiming if everyone stays at home food will magically keep appearing on their doorsteps?
- beepboopbeep 6y ago
  Just to clarify further - the man cites nothing but his own blog articles but makes sweeping statements as though they are fact. This is speculation on medical approaches for an understudied virus by a man totally unqualified who feels it unnecessary to inform his audience as such. How else can one describe fraud?
DagAgren 6y ago
Robin Hanson is an awful human being and also has absolutely no useful knowledge to add to this discussion. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson
rglullis 6y ago
When he shows any semblance of Skin in the Game and gets inoculated with the virus, then I will think about listening to him. There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs.
- kauffj 6y ago
  > There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs This is trivially false, as people accept money for health risk every day (see: working in medicine, transportation, mining, leaving your house, etc.)
  - rglullis 6y ago
    The risks you mentioned are in no way a direct consequence of the actions people take. No one goes to work in medicine with the purpose of getting infected. Do not think this rhetorical BS trap is believable for a second. This is the kind of crappy thinking and morality that economists and Robin Hanson proponents defend and pat themselves in the back for sounding oh-so-smart.
    - ls612 6y ago
      Regardless of whether death is a direct consequence or an outside risk from the action you’re still just as dead. It might matter for the court system assigning blame but it doesn’t matter from an economic perspective.
      - rglullis 6y ago
        > It might matter for the court system assigning blame but it doesn’t matter from an economic perspective. Right. To which I say that anyone that only looks at things from the economic perspective is an immoral hack that should never be listened to. Every larger issue, dear to either conservatives or progressives alike, can find its roots in and be justified by some moron looking for solutions exclusively via an economic perspective. It's a danger to society, plain and simple.
vikramkr 6y ago
One thing to point out is that, as the wikipedia article makes clear, variolation refers explicitly to inoculation with smallpox. What he is proposing is literally just a really mediocre vaccine. Instead of killing or weakening the virus, or expressing subunits to build immunity against, hes suggesting just vaccinating with the normal live virus. And by exposing to a very low dose, it might not even be enough to trigger a strong enough immune response to generate long term memory against the virus, since we're already seeing people with little or no antibody response after getting sick. So of course wed need a rigorous, well run trial to evaluate this, at which point what's the advantage compared to a well made vaccine again? You don't get to have lower standards for your vaccination approach because you call it something else incorrectly.

by kauffj 6y ago

beepboopbeep 6y ago

This man is claiming that staying at home increases deaths... He's also claiming a vaccine could be years away. I also see zero evidence as to why he should be considered a credible source for effective covid treatments. The man is an economist at a university. Am I looking at the wrong Robin Hanson?

skosch 6y ago
You've got the right Robin Hanson. The key argument is that there is lots of uncertainty, but variolation is probably worth trying. And if volunteers can be found, why not? One shouldn't need to be a virologist to credibly make that argument.
- zbjornson 6y ago
  Well, for one, orthopoxviruses cause skin lesions, replicate in keratinocytes, dermal fibroblasts and other skin cells and evoke strong immune responses there. Coronaviruses don't.
  - pmayrgundter 6y ago
    I've been looking into this.. you might be interested in my work on a Live Virus Skin Vaccine for CoV2. Comments welcome! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x91Ef7G6xbm77DcRDvjAXbFmkn6jklTf_4-U_aepDbQ/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x91Ef7G6xbm77DcRDvjAXbFm...
- powersnail 6y ago
  I'm not a medicine professional, so I'm just curious here. Since variolation has basically the same principle as vaccination, it's hardly an alternative to vaccination. Is it really worth trying? To me (with my very crude understanding), proposing variolation as an alternative to vaccination is akin to proposing knife without a handle as an alternative to a regular knife. Is there any case where vaccination fails to work, while variolation succeed?
  - frank2 6y ago
    A vaccine is months or years away whereas variolation can be deployed right now.
    - powersnail 6y ago
      To deploy it, wouldn't it need to be tested just like a vaccine? Or is it suggested to just deploy virolation without testing?
      - frank2 6y ago
        >is it suggested to just deploy [variolation] without testing? Yes: the blog post by economist Robin Hanson suggested deploying it without waiting for the results of testing. (Of course, it would be good to test as fast and as much as possible concurrent with the deployment.) "deploying it": making available to the public a variolation service or procedure designed by medical experts.
        vikramkr 6y ago
        If we're lowering the standard, why only lower it for inoculation? We can just start deploying the dozen+ vaccines we have in development too if we decide testing isn't important.
        ggreer 6y ago
        I'm pretty sure Robin Hanson would want challenge trials with experimental vaccines as well. The issue is that authorities won't allow such trials, not that there is a lack of willing medical experts or volunteers. Though vaccine trials aren't quite as safe for the public as variolation. If a vaccine doesn't work, the person can spread the disease. If variolation doesn't work, then it has the same mortality as natural infection, but afterwards the person is immune and can't spread the disease.
jimmyswimmy 6y ago
He's an economist, sure, and is proposing an idea that others can consider and, perhaps, study. I am not looking to this blog post as a source of treatment ideas but instead as a source of ideas. I've been reading about the importance of the viral load in survival against this disease. His proposed variolation approach is one I've personally considered. Much like families of old had chicken pox parties for their kids, the idea of just getting this over with as safely as possible has some appeal. Yet it is an approach out of favor for good reason. For most diseases the risk can be significant and historically we've been able to improve survival via quarantine and treatment. This disease is apparently harder to quarantine due to a long latency period and asymptomatic cases. And we have no effective treatment for the worst cases. It is interesting however to consider that for patients inoculated with preliminary vaccine, it is considered unethical to give a "challenge dose" of virus, while this guy proposes doing so for those with no protection whatsoever. I can't get past that, and am too risk averse to try his idea even in a carefully controlled setting. I'll keep wearing my mask, washing hands and wait it out for now. There is hope that we will discover a variant of this disease which is less dangerous. In that case I think the approach he recommends is more reasonable.
- DagAgren 6y ago
  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    Ah, RationalWiki. At least it makes Wikipedia look consistently fair and unbiased, I suppose. (Two thirds of that page read to me like "and this is why Hanson should be unpersoned")
    - DagAgren 6y ago
      What part of the article is wrong, though?
      - 6y ago
DagAgren 6y ago
He is not a credible source on this, or pretty much anything else. He has some utterly reprehensible views, and is part of a very questionable cult of self-important people. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson
- pizzazzaro 6y ago
  Sounds to me like a Neoliberal Economist taken to the logical conclusion.
- jimmyswimmy 6y ago
  Meh. I have never heard of him before, but he has a clearly expressed idea which isn't completely unreasonable. I evaluated the idea on its own merits, and that's where I found it lacking. The man matters nothing to me, only his idea. I submit that this is the only reasonable way of evaluating ideas. We can't all be perfect for all time in history. Edit. Having now read your link, I am less interested in following his blog, but my analysis of his proposal is unchanged knowing more about him.
tinus_hn 6y ago
So are you claiming if everyone stays at home food will magically keep appearing on their doorsteps?
beepboopbeep 6y ago
Just to clarify further - the man cites nothing but his own blog articles but makes sweeping statements as though they are fact. This is speculation on medical approaches for an understudied virus by a man totally unqualified who feels it unnecessary to inform his audience as such. How else can one describe fraud?

DagAgren 6y ago

Robin Hanson is an awful human being and also has absolutely no useful knowledge to add to this discussion. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robin_Hanson

rglullis 6y ago

When he shows any semblance of Skin in the Game and gets inoculated with the virus, then I will think about listening to him. There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs.

kauffj 6y ago
> There is no amount of money that can be paid to someone where there is non-zero risk of dying or having long-lasting damages to your brain, heart or lungs This is trivially false, as people accept money for health risk every day (see: working in medicine, transportation, mining, leaving your house, etc.)
- rglullis 6y ago
  The risks you mentioned are in no way a direct consequence of the actions people take. No one goes to work in medicine with the purpose of getting infected. Do not think this rhetorical BS trap is believable for a second. This is the kind of crappy thinking and morality that economists and Robin Hanson proponents defend and pat themselves in the back for sounding oh-so-smart.
  - ls612 6y ago
    Regardless of whether death is a direct consequence or an outside risk from the action you’re still just as dead. It might matter for the court system assigning blame but it doesn’t matter from an economic perspective.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      > It might matter for the court system assigning blame but it doesn’t matter from an economic perspective. Right. To which I say that anyone that only looks at things from the economic perspective is an immoral hack that should never be listened to. Every larger issue, dear to either conservatives or progressives alike, can find its roots in and be justified by some moron looking for solutions exclusively via an economic perspective. It's a danger to society, plain and simple.

vikramkr 6y ago

One thing to point out is that, as the wikipedia article makes clear, variolation refers explicitly to inoculation with smallpox. What he is proposing is literally just a really mediocre vaccine. Instead of killing or weakening the virus, or expressing subunits to build immunity against, hes suggesting just vaccinating with the normal live virus. And by exposing to a very low dose, it might not even be enough to trigger a strong enough immune response to generate long term memory against the virus, since we're already seeing people with little or no antibody response after getting sick. So of course wed need a rigorous, well run trial to evaluate this, at which point what's the advantage compared to a well made vaccine again? You don't get to have lower standards for your vaccination approach because you call it something else incorrectly.