[rglullis]

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]

> 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]

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]

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]

> 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.

[wtetzner]

People accept money to take part in trials all the time.

[inimino]

It's a global pandemic. We all have skin in the game whether we want to or not. Unless you're suggesting that before writing a blog post, he should do some amateur virology and variolate himself, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If you're trying to say Robin Hanson would see this implemented and then not be among the first volunteers, I think you don't know Robin Hanson.

[cameldrv]

I'm guessing he isn't doing it himself because he's 61 years old. His odds of dying are maybe 10-100x higher than the perfectly healthy twentysomethings that he's proposing for an initial trial.

[rglullis]

Well, he is the one that is arguing that there is some linearity between cost-benefit of such a research. So following his own reasoning, as long as he gets 10x-100x bigger payment compared to a twentysomething, all is good and clean.

There are moral considerations to be done before proposing something ridiculous like what he is doing, and yet he is trying to reduce all ethical considerations into a "simple" matter of economics. Life can not be reduced to spherical cows and trolley problems.

[rglullis]

I mean "Skin in the Game" in the Talebian sense, so yes, I am saying that he may write anything he wants, but I will only give any credit to his ideas if he actually follows through himself, or at the very very least if he accepts responsibility for any damage that he's done and is penalized accordingly.

Losing money in a prediction market does not count as a proportional penalty for the damage that he might be causing to others.

[inimino]

I know very well what you meant, and yet I still struggle to see what you're actually suggesting that he should have done, besides what he did, which was write a blog post about an interesting idea.

Can you actually make a concrete suggestion or are you just blathering because you don't like the guy? The only concrete thing I can see in your comment is that you won't "give any credit to his ideas" unless he, presumably, tries it himself first (how?).

And what exactly is this terrible damage that he might be causing to others by raising awareness of this idea? Are we afraid of infection from blog posts now?

[rglullis]

> he, presumably, tries it himself first (how?).

He would be showing a modicum of Skin in the Game if he actually went to infect himself and those close to him with the virus before encouraging others to normalize such a risky experiment.

> Are we afraid of infection from blog posts now?

He is not just "raising awareness" of the idea of variolation. His writing was already trying to argue that government could try a program where volunteers would get paid to be infected.

When asked "if you think this is a good idea, why don't you do it yourself?" he responded with something along the lines of "there is no counterparty to bet with me on it, so what is the point?" Isn't that the answer of someone completely oblivious to the idea of SITG?

[inimino]

> if he actually went to infect himself

Again: How?

He's suggesting a program of trained medical professionals, isolation, observation, and you think he just ought to go off and infect himself in uncontrolled conditions without any medical training or control group? One of the two of you hasn't thought this through, and I'm pretty sure it's you.

[rglullis]

How to infect himself? A short walk in a busy hospital would take care of that quickly... but that really doesn't matter for the argument.

> He's suggesting a program of trained medical professionals, isolation, observation (...) he just ought to go off and infect himself

Yes, that is the point! He is suggesting something that medical experts already consider dangerous and unethical, otherwise it would already be done. He wants medical experts give some veneer of science to something completely immoral just by seeking higher financial compensation to those that might be affected.

So what he is "proposing" involving everyone else taking a lot more risk, without any real consequence for him. This is no display of SITG, quite the opposite. He just sees it as a game of "Heads some might lose their life, but tails we might win a little, so let's find the price point where this is even".

By asking if he is willing to infect himself to do it, it is not a matter of doing it for the science or the economics of betting. It is just a pure ethical filter: "So far your words only risk the lives of others, but if you really think this is the best course of action then you need to demonstrate you are willing to put your ass on the line. Can you?"

[arrosenberg]

> 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.

Hard disagree based on experience. The clinical testing of many drug classes are entirely dependent on many people being too uneducated or desperate to consider those types of risks.

[rglullis]

The fact that something is possible or economically advantageous does not make it moral.

In the crazy scenario that I had to participate in drug trials, I would instate a pretty simple rule: I would only accept those substances if everyone involved in the drug creation and test taking had themselves participated in the trial.

[RubberSoul]

> "In the crazy scenario that I had to participate in drug trials, I would instate a pretty simple rule: I would only accept those substances if everyone involved in the drug creation and test taking had themselves participated in the trial."

That's a simple rule, but it's ridiculous. The costs and benefits of taking a new drug are heterogeneous. Do you think people who develop anti-psychotics should be required to take anti-psychotic medications they have no need for?

[rglullis]

No. I do not think that. It does not make my statement invalid. Does it?

(Come to think of it, it is interesting to see how the US is so addicted to pills and the opiate epidemic. The doctors are free to prescribe willingly, receive incentives from pharma companies and there is almost zero downside paid by them for those that get addicted. Don't you think this would be a much smaller problem if there was a way to get Skin in the Game from the doctors and companies and make them pay for cases of opiate abuse?)

Anyway, I was thinking of drugs that may affect anyone, like treatments for common diseases. For those, the idea is that I would like to have some sense of symmetry in the risk taking for all parties.

As perhaps a better way illustrate what I mean: whenever I had to take my kids to the pediatrician, I would listen to the doctor's recommendations and would ask "If it was your kid, would you still do the same you are telling me?"

Here in Germany the practices are way more conservative and less pill-happy in the US, so I can't recall any time where the doctor would propose something that was not willing to apply to one of her own. In Brazil, however, I do remember in 2017 during an outbreak of Yellow Fever when I everyone was rushing to the hospitals to get a vaccine. I talked to a nurse who basically said "If it was my kid, I wouldn't give it. The side-effects are too strong and it is only sensible if you live really close to the Forest." The doctor later confirmed, and we walked out.