5 ms·

Perhaps there might be a higher level question at hand here. What level of caution is appropriate when the deliberate choice of inaction has a price tag of six

by Kalium 7y ago

Perhaps there might be a higher level question at hand here. What level of caution is appropriate when the deliberate choice of inaction has a price tag of six digits of lives attached? What level of risk and potentially unforeseen consequences are we willing to accept? This is not an idle question. It's a critical question for informing a decision-making framework that rests on calculation. Which we need here - I think we can all agree that personal ick-factor is a bad approach to large-scale public policy. Which is to say you're right. We cannot be certain that won't happen with this approach. Indeed, we cannot be certain of all consequences with any approach. With that in mind, what level of certainty should we require?

tw04 7y ago
For something like this? An extreme amount. There are other options (a vaccine is already being tested) that can't mutate into a pathogen that kills off more people than the thing it was supposed to cure. Let's finish vetting those out completely before we move to what can only be described as the unstable nuclear option.
- Kalium 7y ago
  To be clearer, the question of what level of caution is appropriate is one that cannot depend on the approach being considered. It needs to to be one that can be applied evenly across the whole of the solution-space. Approaches like insisting on fully and completely explore all the ideas that are readily palateable before we try to understand the potentials and risks of others seems like making policy primarily based around personal ick-factor. Which is great when choosing what to have for dinner, but maybe somewhat less than ideal when every delay means thousands more dead people. Also, vaccines can run horribly off the rails. One cannot mutate into a pathogen, as you say, but tainted vaccines are a known risk. There may be unknown long-term risks or other things that haven't been fully studied. No approach is risk-free in this arena, and we do a disservice to humanity when we pretend otherwise.
  - tw04 7y ago
    >but maybe somewhat less than ideal when every delay means thousands more dead people. You literally just defeated your own logic. The reason we do medical trials and "delay" is to ensure the vaccines aren't "tainted" as you put it, and to ensure that there are no delayed side effects. But... you want to rush an alternative option that could kill literally millions, because waiting could mean thousands die??
    - Kalium 7y ago
      I can see I have been unclear. Please accept my apologies for my error. I do not think it reasonable to rush through any thing, option, or approach in this arena. I do not suggest or advise any actions of the sort in any way, shape, or form. I do think it's worth taking the time to ensure that risks are handled properly. I think it's worth having a uniform framework for identifying what those risks are and reasoning about them to enable planning. I also think we should consider carefully the potential benefits of exploring multiple possibilties, against the chance that the most pleasing and lowest risk ones do not pan out. Again, please accept my apoligies for being unclear. I hope I've made myself clearer! Please don't hesitate to ask if there's anything else I can communicate better.
  - roywiggins 7y ago
    > Also, vaccines can run horribly off the rails. One cannot mutate into a pathogen, as you say The live polio vaccine absolutely can. Before polio was largely eliminated, it didn't really matter, but once the risk of getting the wild-type virus dropped below the risk of getting it from the vaccine, it stopped making sense to use the live-attenuated vaccine. http://www.virology.ws/2015/09/10/why-do-we-still-use-sabin-poliovirus-vaccine/ http://www.virology.ws/2015/09/10/why-do-we-still-use-sabin-...
    - User23 7y ago
      This makes me think that it's good persuasion to acknowledge that all anti-vaxxers aren't necessarily fundamentally irrational (some are I'm sure). Most people are anti-vaccine with respect to smallpox for example, as well as the polio example you give. We continue to use the vaccines we do because they improve the overall odds, not because they are a panacea with no downsides.
sorryforthethro 7y ago
Another criticism of this haste is that you set yourself up to be taken advantage of by profiteers or genuine malicious actors. I understand the urgency to save lives as soon as possible; but the risk is high and uncertain.
- Kalium 7y ago
  You're right: the risks are both high and uncertain. With that in mind, it's perhaps worth considering the potential benefits of having a uniform framework for evaluating risks that are attendant upon any given possible course of action. Risk evaluation neither starts nor stops with personal ick-factor or the worst scenarios imaginable. Risk evaluations also need to include the probability of success, expected costs, the estimated probability of any negative outcomes or side-effects, and so on. It's a non-trivial endeavor. Again, you're right. The risks of any possible course of action, particularly poorly understood ones, are very real. They demand meticulous and systematic evaluation.
jeffdavis 7y ago
It sounds like you want to take a calculated risk. I'm not convinced that this is a calculated risk -- it's an unbounded risk. What if it, for example, kills of pretty much all of the insects over a large part of the earth?
- Kalium 7y ago
  I'm saying that taking a calculated risk requires a framework for calculation. Which must of course include the ability to handle for unbounded risks.
- enraged_camel 7y ago
  These types of examples aren’t useful though because you can make up any number of them, and make them as extreme as you want. Risk management, on the other hand, is about determining risks that are reasonably likely, and figuring out contingencies and mitigation strategies. In your opinion, is it reasonably likely that a fungi that is engineered to kill a specific species of insect (and only those carrying a specific disease) can somehow go out of control and end up killing all insects on the planet? In my opinion, it is not.
  - fiter 7y ago
    I think there are a number of people waking up to the level of concern that you need to put on unbounded risks. See the popular book, The Black Swan. To throw out these large but improbable risks is taking a large part out of these distributions. Maybe it's not a good idea.
    - enraged_camel 7y ago
      On the other hand, we cannot afford to be paralyzed by concerns about black swans. If we did, nothing would get done.
      - fiter 7y ago
        I don't think the book and others with similar thoughts suggest anything like being paralyzed with fear, so we should be OK here.
killjoywashere 7y ago
This is a situation where the potential risk that comes with the new invention of man is catastrophic. It's on the same level of Hamming having to, while onthe Manhatten Project, calculate the odds of igniting the atmosphere. There is existential risk to our species and possibly all animal life. So, yeah, we can spend a few years trying to learn about the mutability of this bug.
- Kalium 7y ago
  I fully agree. I'm suggesting that some sort of risk evaluation framework more sophisticated than "Gee, I can imagine a scenario where this kills us all!" might be in order.

by Kalium 7y ago

tw04 7y ago

For something like this? An extreme amount. There are other options (a vaccine is already being tested) that can't mutate into a pathogen that kills off more people than the thing it was supposed to cure. Let's finish vetting those out completely before we move to what can only be described as the unstable nuclear option.

Kalium 7y ago
To be clearer, the question of what level of caution is appropriate is one that cannot depend on the approach being considered. It needs to to be one that can be applied evenly across the whole of the solution-space. Approaches like insisting on fully and completely explore all the ideas that are readily palateable before we try to understand the potentials and risks of others seems like making policy primarily based around personal ick-factor. Which is great when choosing what to have for dinner, but maybe somewhat less than ideal when every delay means thousands more dead people. Also, vaccines can run horribly off the rails. One cannot mutate into a pathogen, as you say, but tainted vaccines are a known risk. There may be unknown long-term risks or other things that haven't been fully studied. No approach is risk-free in this arena, and we do a disservice to humanity when we pretend otherwise.
- tw04 7y ago
  >but maybe somewhat less than ideal when every delay means thousands more dead people. You literally just defeated your own logic. The reason we do medical trials and "delay" is to ensure the vaccines aren't "tainted" as you put it, and to ensure that there are no delayed side effects. But... you want to rush an alternative option that could kill literally millions, because waiting could mean thousands die??
  - Kalium 7y ago
    I can see I have been unclear. Please accept my apologies for my error. I do not think it reasonable to rush through any thing, option, or approach in this arena. I do not suggest or advise any actions of the sort in any way, shape, or form. I do think it's worth taking the time to ensure that risks are handled properly. I think it's worth having a uniform framework for identifying what those risks are and reasoning about them to enable planning. I also think we should consider carefully the potential benefits of exploring multiple possibilties, against the chance that the most pleasing and lowest risk ones do not pan out. Again, please accept my apoligies for being unclear. I hope I've made myself clearer! Please don't hesitate to ask if there's anything else I can communicate better.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  > Also, vaccines can run horribly off the rails. One cannot mutate into a pathogen, as you say The live polio vaccine absolutely can. Before polio was largely eliminated, it didn't really matter, but once the risk of getting the wild-type virus dropped below the risk of getting it from the vaccine, it stopped making sense to use the live-attenuated vaccine. http://www.virology.ws/2015/09/10/why-do-we-still-use-sabin-poliovirus-vaccine/ http://www.virology.ws/2015/09/10/why-do-we-still-use-sabin-...
  - User23 7y ago
    This makes me think that it's good persuasion to acknowledge that all anti-vaxxers aren't necessarily fundamentally irrational (some are I'm sure). Most people are anti-vaccine with respect to smallpox for example, as well as the polio example you give. We continue to use the vaccines we do because they improve the overall odds, not because they are a panacea with no downsides.

sorryforthethro 7y ago

Another criticism of this haste is that you set yourself up to be taken advantage of by profiteers or genuine malicious actors. I understand the urgency to save lives as soon as possible; but the risk is high and uncertain.

Kalium 7y ago
You're right: the risks are both high and uncertain. With that in mind, it's perhaps worth considering the potential benefits of having a uniform framework for evaluating risks that are attendant upon any given possible course of action. Risk evaluation neither starts nor stops with personal ick-factor or the worst scenarios imaginable. Risk evaluations also need to include the probability of success, expected costs, the estimated probability of any negative outcomes or side-effects, and so on. It's a non-trivial endeavor. Again, you're right. The risks of any possible course of action, particularly poorly understood ones, are very real. They demand meticulous and systematic evaluation.

jeffdavis 7y ago

It sounds like you want to take a calculated risk. I'm not convinced that this is a calculated risk -- it's an unbounded risk. What if it, for example, kills of pretty much all of the insects over a large part of the earth?

Kalium 7y ago
I'm saying that taking a calculated risk requires a framework for calculation. Which must of course include the ability to handle for unbounded risks.
enraged_camel 7y ago
These types of examples aren’t useful though because you can make up any number of them, and make them as extreme as you want. Risk management, on the other hand, is about determining risks that are reasonably likely, and figuring out contingencies and mitigation strategies. In your opinion, is it reasonably likely that a fungi that is engineered to kill a specific species of insect (and only those carrying a specific disease) can somehow go out of control and end up killing all insects on the planet? In my opinion, it is not.
- fiter 7y ago
  I think there are a number of people waking up to the level of concern that you need to put on unbounded risks. See the popular book, The Black Swan. To throw out these large but improbable risks is taking a large part out of these distributions. Maybe it's not a good idea.
  - enraged_camel 7y ago
    On the other hand, we cannot afford to be paralyzed by concerns about black swans. If we did, nothing would get done.
    - fiter 7y ago
      I don't think the book and others with similar thoughts suggest anything like being paralyzed with fear, so we should be OK here.

killjoywashere 7y ago

This is a situation where the potential risk that comes with the new invention of man is catastrophic. It's on the same level of Hamming having to, while onthe Manhatten Project, calculate the odds of igniting the atmosphere. There is existential risk to our species and possibly all animal life. So, yeah, we can spend a few years trying to learn about the mutability of this bug.

Kalium 7y ago
I fully agree. I'm suggesting that some sort of risk evaluation framework more sophisticated than "Gee, I can imagine a scenario where this kills us all!" might be in order.