3 ms·

The numbers on variolation (the intentional infection he was talking about) still look like a pretty clear net positive. Were variolation trials not so legally

The numbers on variolation (the intentional infection he was talking about) still look like a pretty clear net positive. Were variolation trials not so legally problematic, they would likely have saved many, many lives, because as Hanson pointed out very early on the amount of exposure seems to be one of the larger factors in disease severity with COVID-19 (which was very predictable). And for most of his futarchy claims, he's relying directly on fairly good evidence. That's not a good reason to overhaul society in its image, but neither is it a good reason to dismiss the ideas. I'm the first to agree that Hanson has pretty big blind spots, and he's about as non-neurotypical as they come (and therefore seems to often fall into a trap of terrible assumptions about how others will behave), but this is an awful example to use.

lkey 5y ago
'Were variolation trials not so legally problematic' It's not like they weren't going to study this, but studying it in a way that doesn't violate the core tenants of medical ethics took longer than vaccine development. Indeed, I see that it has continued to be studied into the present year, but results are not unilaterally good, especially regarding secondary cases. "they would likely have saved many, many lives" This statement is loaded with unfounded assumptions. Governments and epidemiologists, if even if they'd agreed with Hanson, might have had a tough time convincing the population to go to their doctors to be infected with Covid-lite. There are dozens of interventions at every point along the way that might have saved many many lives. What I find most inexcusable is Hanson, a self-styled numbers guy, justifying his urgency with a completely unfounded extrapolation. 'At that rate, in four months deaths go up by a factor of a million, which is basically the whole planet'. This is a completely, laughably unserious analysis. As to the 'futarchy', I think other comments here point out the flaws in any such system better than I could.

lkey 5y ago

'Were variolation trials not so legally problematic' It's not like they weren't going to study this, but studying it in a way that doesn't violate the core tenants of medical ethics took longer than vaccine development. Indeed, I see that it has continued to be studied into the present year, but results are not unilaterally good, especially regarding secondary cases. "they would likely have saved many, many lives" This statement is loaded with unfounded assumptions. Governments and epidemiologists, if even if they'd agreed with Hanson, might have had a tough time convincing the population to go to their doctors to be infected with Covid-lite. There are dozens of interventions at every point along the way that might have saved many many lives. What I find most inexcusable is Hanson, a self-styled numbers guy, justifying his urgency with a completely unfounded extrapolation. 'At that rate, in four months deaths go up by a factor of a million, which is basically the whole planet'. This is a completely, laughably unserious analysis. As to the 'futarchy', I think other comments here point out the flaws in any such system better than I could.