7 ms·

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

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?
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    The point you're missing is that there is no vaccine for Covid-19. If there was, no one would consider variolation.
    - janekm 6y ago
      There are 30 candidate vaccines (probably a lot more by now). 32 if you include the two that are non-weakened forms of virus that are being proposed for variolation.
      - bradj 6y ago
        Having "candidate vaccines" is very different from having a "vaccine". Variolation is a reasonable alternative to the lack of a known, effective vaccine.
        vikramkr 6y ago
        Variolation as a term only applies to smallpox. Giving small doses of the live virus as hanson suggests is literally just a lame vaccine. It's also not known to be safe or effective and would have to go through all the trials anyway.
        ggreer 6y ago
        Hanson is saying we should do those trials, not that we should start deliberately infecting the masses ASAP. The issue is that such trials are banned.
      - pmayrgundter 6y ago
        Are these 2 others actual registered trials? Or are you referring to public proposals for such, like Hanson's? I'm working on just such a public proposal [1] and have been in correspondence with Hanson but haven't heard of any registered. [1] "SARS-CoV2 Live Virus Skin Vaccine" - https://tinyurl.com/y8ujrcze https://tinyurl.com/y8ujrcze
    - 6y ago
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?

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?
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  The point you're missing is that there is no vaccine for Covid-19. If there was, no one would consider variolation.
  - janekm 6y ago
    There are 30 candidate vaccines (probably a lot more by now). 32 if you include the two that are non-weakened forms of virus that are being proposed for variolation.
    - bradj 6y ago
      Having "candidate vaccines" is very different from having a "vaccine". Variolation is a reasonable alternative to the lack of a known, effective vaccine.
      - vikramkr 6y ago
        Variolation as a term only applies to smallpox. Giving small doses of the live virus as hanson suggests is literally just a lame vaccine. It's also not known to be safe or effective and would have to go through all the trials anyway.
        ggreer 6y ago
        Hanson is saying we should do those trials, not that we should start deliberately infecting the masses ASAP. The issue is that such trials are banned.
    - pmayrgundter 6y ago
      Are these 2 others actual registered trials? Or are you referring to public proposals for such, like Hanson's? I'm working on just such a public proposal [1] and have been in correspondence with Hanson but haven't heard of any registered. [1] "SARS-CoV2 Live Virus Skin Vaccine" - https://tinyurl.com/y8ujrcze https://tinyurl.com/y8ujrcze
  - 6y ago

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?