My girlfriend died from human metapneumovirus at 30 years young. She had a weakened immune system from lymphangiomatosis, so something like metapneumovirus, which is a mild illness for most people, was a death sentence for her. I hope this fund is successful so nobody else ever has to go through what she did.
Thank you. It's crazy how quickly life can change.
She filled out a healthcare directive when she was 24. Either she never gave it to her clinic or it didn't get transferred with her other files or something when she started going to a different hospital system. Anyway, the hospital she was in didn't have it. She was hospitalized for like 5 days before she passed. I found that healthcare directive that morning, just a few hours before she died. It was stuffed in the back of a drawer. I was tearing up my apartment trying to find it. And when I found it I saw she had written on there
Please celebrate my life, mourn for me, but know I am in a better place.
God has a plan for me, and He has a plan for all of you.
Don't forget but don't hold it too dearly, clearly US society as a whole doesn't give a f*ck about pedophiles, thats the message I see consistently now. Still not comprehending how can any sane half-decent parent think and act like that (or just any decent human for that matter), but here we are and these are facts.
And you're talking about the spending of a single country, but the success of a plan like this improves the lives of everyone globally. So if drugs were developed by a world-wide fund where every country chips in a percentage of their GDP or whatever, then it would be even more affordable.
I don't think anyone (not insane) actually doubted we could reach the moon, they were just unsure how much money it'd take per launch, and if it'd ever be worth it. Because we had already reached orbit, "add more fuel" is essentially a guaranteed success, if infinite money is allowed - at worst you do it in multiple launches and join up the parts in space. 2, 10, 1000, it'll eventually succeed, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't.
Reaching another star? Definitely more expensive, but entirely feasible if we all got our shit together and decided it was going to happen.
Medical stuff though? Humans are complicated, and there are practically no guaranteed routes, regardless of money (currently).
Yet the chance of saving human lives en masse and permanently advancing knowledge of our own bodies should be more important than ticking a checkbox of walking on the moon and then shelving whole thing for good (that comes from person who loves astronomy etc but there are simply way more important matters in society).
We iteratively succeeded against AIDS ffs, that looked like impossible mission in 80s and 90s, we just threw more science and research on the problem. Your arguments are not that good
Yep. I don't see 500 million being even close to enough to develop broad-spectrum preventatives that would be easy enough and safe enough to administer, to get over 67% of the population to take them.
There are already people dying of malnutrition, preventable disease, etc. in the third world. Half a billion dollars could do a lot of good there, instead of going towards a pipe dream to make sure people never have to miss work for the flu again.
I'm sure if we just cut taxes a little more, our modern-day robber barons will choose to use their money to fix things on their own instead of building doomsday bunkers and buying superyachts.
> There's a reason we had to introduce work regulations so you don't have children working 13 hours shifts in coal mines.
Coincidentally, the regulations appeared when it was no longer profitable to employ children. If you don't believe that, just imagine what jobs kids could do in your workplace. I can't think of any.
Coal mining today is done with industrial machines.
> We surveyed attendees ahead of the symposium. One of our questions was: if this doesn’t happen in the next ~10 years, what will the primary reason be? The number one reason cited was lack of funding, followed by technical feasibility. Why hasn’t this field attracted sufficient funding, especially given the enormous societal burden?
Isn't a projected problem with technical feasibility an explanation for lack of funding?
Not really. They're trying to split up potential causes of failure between:
1. "Funding" meaning: We knew what we had to do but didn't have enough money to do it; if we had, this path would have worked (though why it says "TAM" here I don't quite get);
2. "Technical" meaning: We knew what we wanted to do but couldn't quite make it work; if we had, this path would have worked
3. "Uptake"/"Regulatory" (perhaps not the most natural pairing, though I see why they're together) meaning "We couldn't get people to actually do it"/"The authorities wouldn't let us do it"; if we had, this path would have worked
But that is missing a much different type of failure:
4. "Strategy" meaning "This path does not actually lead to our goal"
It's easy to see why in marketing material they'd leave out that last one. They want to build confidence! But for a moonshot like this, especially a biological one, it's kind of silly to think that this is definitely the best way to achieve this goal. I am, personally, quite skeptical; this reads like a mashup of SV and germophobes (with apologies to, well, both of those groups). I hope it works! And I won't stand in its way. But I won't be betting my own money on it. Probably we will learn something interesting no matter what.
More generally, this is a distinction that a lot of people miss (often intentionally, if PR/marketing is involved): strategy and tactics are distinct and they can succeed or fail independently. The best execution (tactics) here will not help if the plan (strategy) is flawed. And there are numerous other examples from research, business, and of course everyone's favorite hobby subject, war, of what happens when your tactics are good but your strategy isn't, or vice versa, or any of the other combinations. And, of course, making decisions about when to pivot (switch strategies) and all those other fun topics.
> So, to get closer to elimination, we also need a way to reduce the virions circulating in high density environments. During COVID the world experimented with various interventions like social distancing and personal protective equipment. But to reduce transmission durably for a large number of common respiratory viruses that are perennially circulating, we need solutions that are convenient and minimally disruptive.
We think the most promising category of products that accomplish these goals are those that remove pathogens from the air, particularly in high-density environments like offices, schools, and public transit. We’ll call these air cleaning technologies (ACTs) like air filtration and far-UVC antimicrobial light.
Sounds like a pretty big challenge to me... Ok, during Covid I read that airplane-style air conditioning with nozzles above each seat and used air pumped out at ground level was pretty good in making sure "your" air didn't get mixed up with your neighbor's (masks were still mandatory however on the few flights I took during that period). But how are you going to do the same in a packed subway train in, let's say, Tokyo or New York, at rush hour? That air conditioning unit would probably have to be as heavy as the train itself, and to the passengers it would feel like a hairdryer (on cold setting) blasting at them permanently from above...
> Why haven’t we already seen the same kind of transformation with respiratory viruses?
Because it’s a lot easier to control the supply of a material that has to be actively transported into people’s houses for them to use? I struggle to take them seriously when I didn’t see this basic and fundamental difference even mentioned.
Came here to say the same thing. It's simple to clean all the water you consume, cleaning all the air you breathe is impossible unless you want to walk around like Bane. Bizarre that they don't mention this when comparing respiratory infections to waterborne infections.
But you’re not carrying around your own water treatment mechanism either (unless you’re out hiking). It is relatively easy to install air purifiers or UVC lights in offices, schools, grocery stores, etc. The problem is that people don’t care enough about air quality and the ROI isn’t clear. Increasing the ventilation rate in an overstuffed co-working space has cost implications for the operator, but it doesn’t increase revenue.
My oldest starting preschool was one of the worst times in my life. We were sick from august to december, then january to may. Dreadful.
It got better. My youngest is 3 now and is ahead of where my oldest was due to having 2 older siblings importing illnesses for several years, and this year we finally were mostly not sick all school year. Which is to say, we were probably closer to the 15 days "materially sick" mark. I say materially sick to mean, definitely sick, though perhaps not taken out of school (due to not technically being outside of the health exclusion policy, and sometimes I only realize they were "materially" sick after they got home instead of just "passably sick given kids will basically have a lingering cough from august to may).
For me personally, I never was so sick in my life as when my children were between starting nursery school and 3. It was not just respiratory diseases: It was also the time in my life I and my wife had frequent digestive infections. Ohh my...How many times I could not move for 2 days. It felt like I was 80 years old, mixed with the hardest symptoms of food poisoning.
I got sick so often it limited a lot my general life: I stopped practicing sports regularly and started being very careful with sleep(sleep deprivation likely increased the chance of infection), because I knew if I did not lead a perfectly balanced lifestyle I would get sick. I am quite upset I stopped running 15km per week, even with snow. I never fully went back to it, due to fear of getting sick, and having to take care of toddlers while being feverish or nauseated.
In those years I think I was not disease free more than 3 months at a time. In a year where many people decide to not have children, it does not help the cause of having children seeing other parents suffer so much, in those early years. I have non parent friends that get sick after meeting us, resenting meeting us and asking if we are sick, because they spent all the night in the bathroom or with fever. Fortunately it feels we are already immune because we are not sick very often anymore.
I heard about vitamin D during covid, and that and hand sanitizer are the only 2 things we still do. I haven't been sick for a few years. Before covid (and vitamin D supplements), it was at least 25 days sick every year, if not more.
This sounds roughly normal for what I came to expect back when I worked in an office with many people who had school-age kids. I had a colleague who wryly referred to his kids as "my little plague carriers".
When I stopped working in an office, I almost completely stopped getting sick.
+1 for office work as disease source.
Plus taking public transport (mostly underground trains). Today I avoid the subway almost completely, taking my bike almost everywhere, to avoid getting sick during winter.
(No kids though)
Being sick ~20 days per year was the norm for me before remote work (and using N95 masks after it ended). Some people are lucky, others are not. (well, "luck" actually encompasses many factors such as population density, presence/lack of children, mandatory office presence, proper infection countermeasures in public places (air filtering, aeration), and I assume sufficient sleep or not (the only time I did not get sick as often without masking was when I managed to sleep 8 hours a day for a few months))
I've had years in which most people in my immediate surroundings were sick for weeks or months (likely exacerbated by mold, school, and travel). Also years in which I never really got sick at all.
“Every year, in the USA, about 25 million people visit their family doctors with uncomplicated upper respiratory infections, and the common cold syndrome results in about 20 million days of absence from work and 22 million days of absence from school.”
That makes 44 million days of absence on a population of 340 million, or about one day for every 7½ citizens.
Even assuming healthy people are as susceptible to that as the general population and assuming 50% of those that get ill will work, anyways, out of financial necessity, that still is a far cry from “Healthy people spend roughly 15-25 days each year […] sick”
That paper also has a graph showing Mean annual incidence of respiratory illnesses by age group. Eyeballing it (ignoring size differences between age groups) I get at an average of about 3 infections. If each takes a week, that gets you to those 15-25 days.
I guess it depends a lot on what they count as sick. I definitely don't spend 3 weeks a year in bed, but if you add up all the random sore throats, congestion, coughs that linger for a week and "not really sick but clearly fighting something" days, it may be less crazy than it sounds
For my family of 5 w/ school age children I would say that is a pretty reasonable estimate, maybe even a bit low for us. There are levels of “sick” though and I would say for us most respiratory illnesses are very mild and are a minor annoyance. Where it becomes more menacing is when we have sick kids and sick parents at the same time.
No its correct, having 2 kids and rate of sickness went through the roof, same for my wife.
We also had 10+ covids to indicate how much it changes, mostly imported by kids from creche (we hit the 'right' timing with them and covid waves). What do you expect when they shared pacifiers and put fingers in mouths all the time. Or suddenly sneezing gunk all over my face when holding them.
Before kids, I was usually sick 1x a year for few days, or had 1 proper flu week and that was it, my wife even less. No it didn't visibly improve our immunity, had covid last autumn and it felt almost like for the first time, sans loss of smell and taste.
Healthy lifestyle and food have a huge part. I date teachers a lot, and I've taken several people from constantly sick to almost never sick for 1+ year by just changing food and not going out to bars. I know this sounds like a random flippant comment, but I've done it enough times and consistently enough that I have no doubt personally.
As someone who still masks (KN95) in all indoor settings where unmasked people are present, I am all for this. Very much looking forward to seeing where it leads.
Well, in my case it's because A: I have a gazillion underlying health issues and B: I haven't been "sick" since February of 2020, when I had a diagnosed type-B flu.
The tricky part is that the benefit is invisible. If it works, nothing happens: people just get sick less often. That is a hard thing to sell to building owners and employers unless the evidence and standards are really solid
It seems like implementing HEPA filters in every classrooms has the biggest effect. The kids are spreading disease, infecting their parents, who then infect their coworkers.
Nice to see they mention UV, too. Aerolamp[0] is down to ~$500. If it were $100, it'd be easy to get into offices, too. Heck, if I worked in person, I'd buy a $100 one as an employee.
Noble goal, but tell a bunch of scientists and startups that you've got a grand vision and $500 million in cash to burn, and they're always going to tell you a story about how it could be possible if you give them that money. And your sycophantic AI you use to research and vet will also always tell you there's a chance, if that's what you seem to be wanting.
I am so tremendously excited to see this, I've had quite a few friends become permanently disabled from long covid and even have some lingering symptoms myself from my last infection and so anything to improve access and uptake of air cleaning technologies and new preventatives is amazing.
I was really disappointed that air cleaning didn’t take off after Covid. Super disappointing to see society just collectively decide to not learn any lessons.
Even if there were no mortality or productivity benefits, you’d think cutting down on cold and flu would be sufficient motivation on its own. Especially in schools and other high risk places.
We had twins after having a singleton during covid. We invested in 4 big hepa air filters and placed one in each bedroom. I think it significantly reduced the amount of illnesses we faced in the first year if the twins life. Lesson learned for us.
> Even if there were no mortality or productivity benefits, you’d think cutting down on cold and flu would be sufficient motivation on its own.
You'd think that, but air-cleaning equipment that's not legally required is an avoidable expense. People getting sick, crippled, or even dying from things that aren't legally your fault doesn't appear on a company's balance sheets.
Given that, it's pretty obvious what a business that's out to save every dollar you can get away with will choose to do.
My son is susceptible to these type of infections and has asthma. He missed 17 days of school last year. Even if not fatal these types of infections are miserable and have an impact on those who get them and their caretakers.
It's important to build on solid foundations, rather than on faulty assumptions. My experience is the standard medical approach to lung problems is basically wrong.
There was a submission ~6 years ago about using ethanol to sanitize people's lungs as a treatment for COVID-19. One of the comments shared a college story about how they were coerced into treating their sniffles with a spoon and vodka: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22745834
In early 2020 I started advocating using the classic herbal treatment for lung problems: apple brandy inhaled from a charred oak keg. The theory is simply that the ethanol is an antiseptic, and the apple and oak flavoring compounds stimulate the lungs to repair themselves.
I found a manufacturer and started selling little 3L kegs. My first customer asked, "can I try it?" I warned that the ethanol burns before you get used to it. I was impressed that he was able to fill his lungs with apple brandy fumes without coughing the first time. After a moment of held breath he darted off. When he came back 1 or 2 minutes later he said, "I'll take one".
He was a big guy. His problem was getting winded between his car and the store. That he could walk for one or two minutes on lungs filled with apple brandy fumes, when he couldn't normally walk without getting winded while breathing normally, was incredible.
2 hours later he called back. The husband of the woman he'd been the driver for that day was ~70 year old husband and coughing himself to death with a case of the COPD. He'd quit smoking ~20 years before, but his lungs never recovered.
Both of these men's lung conditions rapidly improved after they started inhaling apple brandy fumes. After he started huffing on apple brandy 4x/day, the COPD fellow's coughs went away, and his skin went from 'gray' to 'pink'. The other fellow caught the COVID-19 in June or July that year. I heard his lung capacity score was fantastic, the virus was just hitting his kidneys. He survived his hospitalization.
The modern tool that facilitates the inhalation of apple brandy is a nebulizer.
Different story: in 2021/2022 I was emailed by a woman who'd found my youtube video. In 2023 she came out to Arizona to visit, then to stay permanently. She always assumed that her lung problems were related to the asbestos she'd inhaled on 9/11. But since she's started using the apple brandy barrel, she's only had to use her inhaler once in the past 3 years: when she got a lung full of hairspray in the gym's bathroom.
As the submission in the link above indicated at the start of COVID-19, treatment with inhaled ethanol is a reasonable initial treatment for respiratory problems.
Maybe they can send some of this money to the Wuhan Institive of Virology to research respiratory viruses in bats and some to Raph Baric at UNC for vaccine development. What could go wrong?
I'd be interested to see more concerted research into contagious/self-replicable vaccines that are self-replicating and spreadable to a wider swath of people. That seems like a step forward in public health prevention for seasonal illnesses that we have well-engineered and safe vaccines for.
I understand the bar for deployment would need to be high to ensure that side effects are even rare compared to typical voluntary vaccinations.
This sounds like a wonderfully deadly bio-weapon platform you're planning there. Maybe introduce some gene filter to target specific population groups..? The possibilities are endless!
I still amazed how so many people don't get this entire planet is one feedback loop system of competing life processes and they think hiding in their dusty houses with artificial cures will keep them away from competition and immune against death.
1) There’s no way the public would buy in to this idea.
2) This seems like a serious violation of medical ethics.
3) If we already gave a well-engineered and safe vaccine, why not take that? Supply chain and immunization itself isn’t a practical choke point: it’s vaccine accuracy for things like flu, and vaccine misinformation for something like measles. But again, take the vaccine or don’t: for most illnesses and most scenarios, you’re only hurting yourself.
No idea of whether those people ar competent, or if it's a PR stunt. Good luck to them. I've joked often enough that "a vaccine for common cold" would have changed my life.
Also, I'm:
- happy that they don't claim the breakthrough will come from AI or Blockchain, for once
- a bit surprised that they got founding by both openAi and Anthropic (so of course they'll try to solve a few things with ai and Blockchain, but,who knows.) Aren't those companies loosing vast amount of money at the moment ? What are they doing philanthropy with ? Just borrowing ? Or are investors for their Series XYZ usually ok with the owner using the money to fund pet projects (even if here, the "pet project" is a good idea, and potentially a good customer/ ?
My post should have used quotes around "AI and blockchain" (or maybe read "AI and blockain and VR and whatever").
By that I meant "they don't pretend they're going to solve a hard problem by vaguely handwaving at trendy buzzwords".
More seriously speaking, I suspect (and hope) that some form of machine learning / data generation could help in such an effort (AlphaFold is a thing, not a buzzword.)
The blockchain part is much more tongue in check, of course.
the premise is wildly disengenious in conflating the pureification of water supplys, and air.
a simple set of facts is that humans now represent the largest mass and population of large animals ever to exist.
this population inhabits many habitats , both natural and constructed.
this population has huge numbers of indivuals who have compromised imune systems.
and last, but worst is that humans now constitute a biological niche, and a primary
law of biology is the "all niches will be filled"
> Why haven’t we already seen the same kind of transformation with respiratory viruses?
My favorite conspiracy-adjacent theory is that pharmaceutical companies don’t have any intention to give up the multi-billion dollar market of cold and respiratory infections palliatives.
Even if there is no ill intent, there are just no market or capitalistic incentives, because a one-shot solution for these pathogens is not going to create a market as rich as the previous one.
To me this is the perfect representation of why believing the market is a positive force is wrong. If not for external pressure, in this case the market clearly signals that it’s best for us all to keep getting colds.
While I think it’s a noble idea I think much more could be achieved with much smaller amounts of money. Actually zero. Regulate sugar, introduce a HIGH sugar tax. Introduce higher nicotine and alcohol tax. Introduce stricter environmental controls for poisonous materials and water and air pollution.
All these things cost essentially zero to implement, they even bring in money and all of them are credible ways to significantly reduce health problems world wide.
But eh, I’m not part of a lobbying organisation, so what do I know.
I like the idea, but I think there will be significant costs associated with it, especially for stricter environmental controls for poisonous materials and water / air pollution, since it'll cost companies to implement and maintain this, regulate it etc.
My girlfriend died from human metapneumovirus at 30 years young. She had a weakened immune system from lymphangiomatosis, so something like metapneumovirus, which is a mild illness for most people, was a death sentence for her. I hope this fund is successful so nobody else ever has to go through what she did.
This is the kind of thing people miss when they say "it's just a cold". I really hope this work goes somewhere.
So sorry to hear that. I know neither you nor her, but no one ought to go through that. I hope you are doing well. Best wishes
Sorry for your loss.
Thank you. It's crazy how quickly life can change.
She filled out a healthcare directive when she was 24. Either she never gave it to her clinic or it didn't get transferred with her other files or something when she started going to a different hospital system. Anyway, the hospital she was in didn't have it. She was hospitalized for like 5 days before she passed. I found that healthcare directive that morning, just a few hours before she died. It was stuffed in the back of a drawer. I was tearing up my apartment trying to find it. And when I found it I saw she had written on there
Please celebrate my life, mourn for me, but know I am in a better place. God has a plan for me, and He has a plan for all of you.
Heartbreaking. Sorry for your loss.
It's sad we're resorting to philanthropy to solve problems like this. $500M is chump change.
NASA spent something like $300B in today's money on the Apollo program, and Artemis has exceeded $90B already.
I'm much more keen on never getting sick than prepping for Mars.
The Iran war is going to cost us at least $200 billion dollars and you’re over here complaining about NASA spending?
just keep reminding yourself who was on those files... in case you forget it over the war
Don't forget but don't hold it too dearly, clearly US society as a whole doesn't give a f*ck about pedophiles, thats the message I see consistently now. Still not comprehending how can any sane half-decent parent think and act like that (or just any decent human for that matter), but here we are and these are facts.
Files? You mean Epstein? You have the wrong target there and you are playing into your enemy’s game.
Add to that more than $300 billion that the US has given to Israel as "aid". And as a thanks, a lost war with Iran with global economic implications.
https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts
Iran? An immigrant might get free healthcare, or a trans person might not have a horrible day today. Have you ever considered that?
And you're talking about the spending of a single country, but the success of a plan like this improves the lives of everyone globally. So if drugs were developed by a world-wide fund where every country chips in a percentage of their GDP or whatever, then it would be even more affordable.
It's strange how much we've normalized everyone being sick for weeks every year, even though the total cost is enormous
It’s 500m spend without guaranteed success.
Yeah, so was building moon rockets.
I don't think anyone (not insane) actually doubted we could reach the moon, they were just unsure how much money it'd take per launch, and if it'd ever be worth it. Because we had already reached orbit, "add more fuel" is essentially a guaranteed success, if infinite money is allowed - at worst you do it in multiple launches and join up the parts in space. 2, 10, 1000, it'll eventually succeed, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't.
Reaching another star? Definitely more expensive, but entirely feasible if we all got our shit together and decided it was going to happen.
Medical stuff though? Humans are complicated, and there are practically no guaranteed routes, regardless of money (currently).
Well, don't forget the Soviets gave up in the end with their N1 rocket.
Yet the chance of saving human lives en masse and permanently advancing knowledge of our own bodies should be more important than ticking a checkbox of walking on the moon and then shelving whole thing for good (that comes from person who loves astronomy etc but there are simply way more important matters in society).
We iteratively succeeded against AIDS ffs, that looked like impossible mission in 80s and 90s, we just threw more science and research on the problem. Your arguments are not that good
Looking at how Blue Origin is doing, it seems that that's still true.
remind me how successful the Iran war was
What makes you think they will succeed?
Yep. I don't see 500 million being even close to enough to develop broad-spectrum preventatives that would be easy enough and safe enough to administer, to get over 67% of the population to take them.
> I'm much more keen on never getting sick than prepping for Mars.
Never getting sick is an enabler to reaching the goal. And the goal is..?
There are already people dying of malnutrition, preventable disease, etc. in the third world. Half a billion dollars could do a lot of good there, instead of going towards a pipe dream to make sure people never have to miss work for the flu again.
Everything should be voluntary philantrhopy! It seems like the ideal state if people are willing to do the pro-social thing by their own volition.
Is it better if your child does their homework because they freely choose to, or is it better that they do it because you will beat them with a belt?
I'm sure if we just cut taxes a little more, our modern-day robber barons will choose to use their money to fix things on their own instead of building doomsday bunkers and buying superyachts.
it will start to trickle down any moment now!
That trickling down? It's them pissing all over us.
But people are not voluntarily philanthropists.
There's a reason we had to introduce work regulations so you don't have children working 13 hours shifts in coal mines.
It's way better if my children study by themselves, but if left to their own devises they'll just watch cartoons all day.
(Not advocating for belting kids, just saying there's a gap between utopia and reality)
> There's a reason we had to introduce work regulations so you don't have children working 13 hours shifts in coal mines.
Coincidentally, the regulations appeared when it was no longer profitable to employ children. If you don't believe that, just imagine what jobs kids could do in your workplace. I can't think of any.
Coal mining today is done with industrial machines.
People who are voluntary philanthropists tend not to amass fortunes.
> We surveyed attendees ahead of the symposium. One of our questions was: if this doesn’t happen in the next ~10 years, what will the primary reason be? The number one reason cited was lack of funding, followed by technical feasibility. Why hasn’t this field attracted sufficient funding, especially given the enormous societal burden?
Isn't a projected problem with technical feasibility an explanation for lack of funding?
Not really. They're trying to split up potential causes of failure between:
1. "Funding" meaning: We knew what we had to do but didn't have enough money to do it; if we had, this path would have worked (though why it says "TAM" here I don't quite get);
2. "Technical" meaning: We knew what we wanted to do but couldn't quite make it work; if we had, this path would have worked
3. "Uptake"/"Regulatory" (perhaps not the most natural pairing, though I see why they're together) meaning "We couldn't get people to actually do it"/"The authorities wouldn't let us do it"; if we had, this path would have worked
But that is missing a much different type of failure:
4. "Strategy" meaning "This path does not actually lead to our goal"
It's easy to see why in marketing material they'd leave out that last one. They want to build confidence! But for a moonshot like this, especially a biological one, it's kind of silly to think that this is definitely the best way to achieve this goal. I am, personally, quite skeptical; this reads like a mashup of SV and germophobes (with apologies to, well, both of those groups). I hope it works! And I won't stand in its way. But I won't be betting my own money on it. Probably we will learn something interesting no matter what.
More generally, this is a distinction that a lot of people miss (often intentionally, if PR/marketing is involved): strategy and tactics are distinct and they can succeed or fail independently. The best execution (tactics) here will not help if the plan (strategy) is flawed. And there are numerous other examples from research, business, and of course everyone's favorite hobby subject, war, of what happens when your tactics are good but your strategy isn't, or vice versa, or any of the other combinations. And, of course, making decisions about when to pivot (switch strategies) and all those other fun topics.
> So, to get closer to elimination, we also need a way to reduce the virions circulating in high density environments. During COVID the world experimented with various interventions like social distancing and personal protective equipment. But to reduce transmission durably for a large number of common respiratory viruses that are perennially circulating, we need solutions that are convenient and minimally disruptive.
We think the most promising category of products that accomplish these goals are those that remove pathogens from the air, particularly in high-density environments like offices, schools, and public transit. We’ll call these air cleaning technologies (ACTs) like air filtration and far-UVC antimicrobial light.
Sounds like a pretty big challenge to me... Ok, during Covid I read that airplane-style air conditioning with nozzles above each seat and used air pumped out at ground level was pretty good in making sure "your" air didn't get mixed up with your neighbor's (masks were still mandatory however on the few flights I took during that period). But how are you going to do the same in a packed subway train in, let's say, Tokyo or New York, at rush hour? That air conditioning unit would probably have to be as heavy as the train itself, and to the passengers it would feel like a hairdryer (on cold setting) blasting at them permanently from above...
> Why haven’t we already seen the same kind of transformation with respiratory viruses?
Because it’s a lot easier to control the supply of a material that has to be actively transported into people’s houses for them to use? I struggle to take them seriously when I didn’t see this basic and fundamental difference even mentioned.
Came here to say the same thing. It's simple to clean all the water you consume, cleaning all the air you breathe is impossible unless you want to walk around like Bane. Bizarre that they don't mention this when comparing respiratory infections to waterborne infections.
But you’re not carrying around your own water treatment mechanism either (unless you’re out hiking). It is relatively easy to install air purifiers or UVC lights in offices, schools, grocery stores, etc. The problem is that people don’t care enough about air quality and the ROI isn’t clear. Increasing the ventilation rate in an overstuffed co-working space has cost implications for the operator, but it doesn’t increase revenue.
> Healthy people spend roughly 15-25 days each year—about 5% of their lives—sick with respiratory infections like the common cold and influenza
This seems completely unbelievable to me. Totally outside of my personal, professional, and family experience.
No kids eh?
My oldest starting preschool was one of the worst times in my life. We were sick from august to december, then january to may. Dreadful.
It got better. My youngest is 3 now and is ahead of where my oldest was due to having 2 older siblings importing illnesses for several years, and this year we finally were mostly not sick all school year. Which is to say, we were probably closer to the 15 days "materially sick" mark. I say materially sick to mean, definitely sick, though perhaps not taken out of school (due to not technically being outside of the health exclusion policy, and sometimes I only realize they were "materially" sick after they got home instead of just "passably sick given kids will basically have a lingering cough from august to may).
For me personally, I never was so sick in my life as when my children were between starting nursery school and 3. It was not just respiratory diseases: It was also the time in my life I and my wife had frequent digestive infections. Ohh my...How many times I could not move for 2 days. It felt like I was 80 years old, mixed with the hardest symptoms of food poisoning.
I got sick so often it limited a lot my general life: I stopped practicing sports regularly and started being very careful with sleep(sleep deprivation likely increased the chance of infection), because I knew if I did not lead a perfectly balanced lifestyle I would get sick. I am quite upset I stopped running 15km per week, even with snow. I never fully went back to it, due to fear of getting sick, and having to take care of toddlers while being feverish or nauseated.
In those years I think I was not disease free more than 3 months at a time. In a year where many people decide to not have children, it does not help the cause of having children seeing other parents suffer so much, in those early years. I have non parent friends that get sick after meeting us, resenting meeting us and asking if we are sick, because they spent all the night in the bathroom or with fever. Fortunately it feels we are already immune because we are not sick very often anymore.
> I never fully went back to it, due to fear of getting sick
Does running long distance increase the chance of getting sick?
This happened to us too, until I heard the podcast about Vitamin D. Nipped that in the bud almost immediately.
This is Linus Pauling all over again.
I don't care what was "disproven" or if it's a placebo.
I raised vitamin D intake in winter, I take betaglucans and if I feel like I am starting to get under the weather I take 2-3g of vitamin C per day.
Since we started that, no colds or flus for me or my wife and we have a kindergarten kid.
I heard about vitamin D during covid, and that and hand sanitizer are the only 2 things we still do. I haven't been sick for a few years. Before covid (and vitamin D supplements), it was at least 25 days sick every year, if not more.
What's that? Any particular dosage?
Kids don't just get sick, they seem to turn the whole house into a slow-motion relay race of viruses
This sounds roughly normal for what I came to expect back when I worked in an office with many people who had school-age kids. I had a colleague who wryly referred to his kids as "my little plague carriers".
When I stopped working in an office, I almost completely stopped getting sick.
+1 for office work as disease source. Plus taking public transport (mostly underground trains). Today I avoid the subway almost completely, taking my bike almost everywhere, to avoid getting sick during winter. (No kids though)
Being sick ~20 days per year was the norm for me before remote work (and using N95 masks after it ended). Some people are lucky, others are not. (well, "luck" actually encompasses many factors such as population density, presence/lack of children, mandatory office presence, proper infection countermeasures in public places (air filtering, aeration), and I assume sufficient sleep or not (the only time I did not get sick as often without masking was when I managed to sleep 8 hours a day for a few months))
Unbelievable in which direction?
I've had years in which most people in my immediate surroundings were sick for weeks or months (likely exacerbated by mold, school, and travel). Also years in which I never really got sick at all.
Getting sick that often is pretty debilitating.
This feels about right to me. Living with kids and commuting via public transport (in a country where face masks are not common) might break 5%.
Are you reading “sick” as so ill that you can’t carry out your normal routine? I think they mean any symptoms.
> I think they mean any symptoms.
I think so, too. The referenced article (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...) says:
“Every year, in the USA, about 25 million people visit their family doctors with uncomplicated upper respiratory infections, and the common cold syndrome results in about 20 million days of absence from work and 22 million days of absence from school.”
That makes 44 million days of absence on a population of 340 million, or about one day for every 7½ citizens.
Even assuming healthy people are as susceptible to that as the general population and assuming 50% of those that get ill will work, anyways, out of financial necessity, that still is a far cry from “Healthy people spend roughly 15-25 days each year […] sick”
That paper also has a graph showing Mean annual incidence of respiratory illnesses by age group. Eyeballing it (ignoring size differences between age groups) I get at an average of about 3 infections. If each takes a week, that gets you to those 15-25 days.
Yeah, that number is probably too low by a factor of two or so.
I guess it depends a lot on what they count as sick. I definitely don't spend 3 weeks a year in bed, but if you add up all the random sore throats, congestion, coughs that linger for a week and "not really sick but clearly fighting something" days, it may be less crazy than it sounds
For my family of 5 w/ school age children I would say that is a pretty reasonable estimate, maybe even a bit low for us. There are levels of “sick” though and I would say for us most respiratory illnesses are very mild and are a minor annoyance. Where it becomes more menacing is when we have sick kids and sick parents at the same time.
I would love to move to whatever planet you're living on. To me the estimate seems low.
No its correct, having 2 kids and rate of sickness went through the roof, same for my wife.
We also had 10+ covids to indicate how much it changes, mostly imported by kids from creche (we hit the 'right' timing with them and covid waves). What do you expect when they shared pacifiers and put fingers in mouths all the time. Or suddenly sneezing gunk all over my face when holding them.
Before kids, I was usually sick 1x a year for few days, or had 1 proper flu week and that was it, my wife even less. No it didn't visibly improve our immunity, had covid last autumn and it felt almost like for the first time, sans loss of smell and taste.
Healthy lifestyle and food have a huge part. I date teachers a lot, and I've taken several people from constantly sick to almost never sick for 1+ year by just changing food and not going out to bars. I know this sounds like a random flippant comment, but I've done it enough times and consistently enough that I have no doubt personally.
As someone who still masks (KN95) in all indoor settings where unmasked people are present, I am all for this. Very much looking forward to seeing where it leads.
What is it that motivates you to continue wearing a mask?
I take note of people who are still masking, but I have compassion for their fear so I don't say anything.
Well, in my case it's because A: I have a gazillion underlying health issues and B: I haven't been "sick" since February of 2020, when I had a diagnosed type-B flu.
The tricky part is that the benefit is invisible. If it works, nothing happens: people just get sick less often. That is a hard thing to sell to building owners and employers unless the evidence and standards are really solid
It seems like implementing HEPA filters in every classrooms has the biggest effect. The kids are spreading disease, infecting their parents, who then infect their coworkers.
Nice to see they mention UV, too. Aerolamp[0] is down to ~$500. If it were $100, it'd be easy to get into offices, too. Heck, if I worked in person, I'd buy a $100 one as an employee.
[0] https://aerolamp.net/pages/about-aerolamp
Noble goal, but tell a bunch of scientists and startups that you've got a grand vision and $500 million in cash to burn, and they're always going to tell you a story about how it could be possible if you give them that money. And your sycophantic AI you use to research and vet will also always tell you there's a chance, if that's what you seem to be wanting.
I am so tremendously excited to see this, I've had quite a few friends become permanently disabled from long covid and even have some lingering symptoms myself from my last infection and so anything to improve access and uptake of air cleaning technologies and new preventatives is amazing.
Can it be dangerous to use uv as it can cause mutations in pathogens potentially making them evolve even faster?
I assume the kind of uv used must be fatal, but is there a chance that a tiny percentage makes it?
Sunlight is the biggest UV source and at the scales we’re talking, manmade disinfectants would not register
I was really disappointed that air cleaning didn’t take off after Covid. Super disappointing to see society just collectively decide to not learn any lessons.
Even if there were no mortality or productivity benefits, you’d think cutting down on cold and flu would be sufficient motivation on its own. Especially in schools and other high risk places.
Kudos to these people.
We had twins after having a singleton during covid. We invested in 4 big hepa air filters and placed one in each bedroom. I think it significantly reduced the amount of illnesses we faced in the first year if the twins life. Lesson learned for us.
> Even if there were no mortality or productivity benefits, you’d think cutting down on cold and flu would be sufficient motivation on its own.
You'd think that, but air-cleaning equipment that's not legally required is an avoidable expense. People getting sick, crippled, or even dying from things that aren't legally your fault doesn't appear on a company's balance sheets.
Given that, it's pretty obvious what a business that's out to save every dollar you can get away with will choose to do.
My son is susceptible to these type of infections and has asthma. He missed 17 days of school last year. Even if not fatal these types of infections are miserable and have an impact on those who get them and their caretakers.
It's important to build on solid foundations, rather than on faulty assumptions. My experience is the standard medical approach to lung problems is basically wrong.
There was a submission ~6 years ago about using ethanol to sanitize people's lungs as a treatment for COVID-19. One of the comments shared a college story about how they were coerced into treating their sniffles with a spoon and vodka: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22745834
In early 2020 I started advocating using the classic herbal treatment for lung problems: apple brandy inhaled from a charred oak keg. The theory is simply that the ethanol is an antiseptic, and the apple and oak flavoring compounds stimulate the lungs to repair themselves.
I found a manufacturer and started selling little 3L kegs. My first customer asked, "can I try it?" I warned that the ethanol burns before you get used to it. I was impressed that he was able to fill his lungs with apple brandy fumes without coughing the first time. After a moment of held breath he darted off. When he came back 1 or 2 minutes later he said, "I'll take one".
He was a big guy. His problem was getting winded between his car and the store. That he could walk for one or two minutes on lungs filled with apple brandy fumes, when he couldn't normally walk without getting winded while breathing normally, was incredible.
2 hours later he called back. The husband of the woman he'd been the driver for that day was ~70 year old husband and coughing himself to death with a case of the COPD. He'd quit smoking ~20 years before, but his lungs never recovered.
Both of these men's lung conditions rapidly improved after they started inhaling apple brandy fumes. After he started huffing on apple brandy 4x/day, the COPD fellow's coughs went away, and his skin went from 'gray' to 'pink'. The other fellow caught the COVID-19 in June or July that year. I heard his lung capacity score was fantastic, the virus was just hitting his kidneys. He survived his hospitalization.
The modern tool that facilitates the inhalation of apple brandy is a nebulizer.
Different story: in 2021/2022 I was emailed by a woman who'd found my youtube video. In 2023 she came out to Arizona to visit, then to stay permanently. She always assumed that her lung problems were related to the asbestos she'd inhaled on 9/11. But since she's started using the apple brandy barrel, she's only had to use her inhaler once in the past 3 years: when she got a lung full of hairspray in the gym's bathroom.
As the submission in the link above indicated at the start of COVID-19, treatment with inhaled ethanol is a reasonable initial treatment for respiratory problems.
Maybe they can send some of this money to the Wuhan Institive of Virology to research respiratory viruses in bats and some to Raph Baric at UNC for vaccine development. What could go wrong?
Hard to tell. They might have equally well found something helpful if it weren't for the incident.
I'd be interested to see more concerted research into contagious/self-replicable vaccines that are self-replicating and spreadable to a wider swath of people. That seems like a step forward in public health prevention for seasonal illnesses that we have well-engineered and safe vaccines for.
I understand the bar for deployment would need to be high to ensure that side effects are even rare compared to typical voluntary vaccinations.
This sounds like a wonderfully deadly bio-weapon platform you're planning there. Maybe introduce some gene filter to target specific population groups..? The possibilities are endless!
Self-replicating vaccines? We already have those. They're called diseases.
I still amazed how so many people don't get this entire planet is one feedback loop system of competing life processes and they think hiding in their dusty houses with artificial cures will keep them away from competition and immune against death.
1) There’s no way the public would buy in to this idea. 2) This seems like a serious violation of medical ethics. 3) If we already gave a well-engineered and safe vaccine, why not take that? Supply chain and immunization itself isn’t a practical choke point: it’s vaccine accuracy for things like flu, and vaccine misinformation for something like measles. But again, take the vaccine or don’t: for most illnesses and most scenarios, you’re only hurting yourself.
No idea of whether those people ar competent, or if it's a PR stunt. Good luck to them. I've joked often enough that "a vaccine for common cold" would have changed my life.
Also, I'm:
- happy that they don't claim the breakthrough will come from AI or Blockchain, for once
- a bit surprised that they got founding by both openAi and Anthropic (so of course they'll try to solve a few things with ai and Blockchain, but,who knows.) Aren't those companies loosing vast amount of money at the moment ? What are they doing philanthropy with ? Just borrowing ? Or are investors for their Series XYZ usually ok with the owner using the money to fund pet projects (even if here, the "pet project" is a good idea, and potentially a good customer/ ?
Your post is equalising the utility of blockchain and AI which means you have no idea about the utility of either of them.
My post should have used quotes around "AI and blockchain" (or maybe read "AI and blockain and VR and whatever").
By that I meant "they don't pretend they're going to solve a hard problem by vaguely handwaving at trendy buzzwords".
More seriously speaking, I suspect (and hope) that some form of machine learning / data generation could help in such an effort (AlphaFold is a thing, not a buzzword.)
The blockchain part is much more tongue in check, of course.
If you want to end respiratory infections: eat healthy, exercise, stop smoking, decrease stress, spend time outside in the sun
Are you really under the impression that doing that makes you immune to the flu?
no thanks
the premise is wildly disengenious in conflating the pureification of water supplys, and air. a simple set of facts is that humans now represent the largest mass and population of large animals ever to exist. this population inhabits many habitats , both natural and constructed. this population has huge numbers of indivuals who have compromised imune systems. and last, but worst is that humans now constitute a biological niche, and a primary law of biology is the "all niches will be filled"
> Why haven’t we already seen the same kind of transformation with respiratory viruses?
My favorite conspiracy-adjacent theory is that pharmaceutical companies don’t have any intention to give up the multi-billion dollar market of cold and respiratory infections palliatives. Even if there is no ill intent, there are just no market or capitalistic incentives, because a one-shot solution for these pathogens is not going to create a market as rich as the previous one.
To me this is the perfect representation of why believing the market is a positive force is wrong. If not for external pressure, in this case the market clearly signals that it’s best for us all to keep getting colds.
As someone currently with a nasty cold, having to work through it anyhow - please.
While I think it’s a noble idea I think much more could be achieved with much smaller amounts of money. Actually zero. Regulate sugar, introduce a HIGH sugar tax. Introduce higher nicotine and alcohol tax. Introduce stricter environmental controls for poisonous materials and water and air pollution. All these things cost essentially zero to implement, they even bring in money and all of them are credible ways to significantly reduce health problems world wide. But eh, I’m not part of a lobbying organisation, so what do I know.
I like the idea, but I think there will be significant costs associated with it, especially for stricter environmental controls for poisonous materials and water / air pollution, since it'll cost companies to implement and maintain this, regulate it etc.