EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
Nathan Young2
0
0

We have screenshots of doctors asking one another to learn how to split ventilator feeds, make more effective PPE and PPE being delivered using connections from the handbook.

Reply
See in context
by AronM
2 min read 8

30

BiosecurityALLFEDCOVID-19 pandemic
Frontpage

This was a project carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is no longer active.

---

Call To Action (CTA)

[UPDATE]

We have created the FoodSystemsHandbook and are looking forward to the launch event. Volunteers helping out with organising (and content) are still very welcome. We will bring you up to date quickly. Email at team@ALLFED.info .

[/UPDATE]

COVID-19 has precipitated an emerging food crisis that is unprecedented in the last 75 years. We’ve earlier described the crisis and made the case for action on this front, a situation the WFP has described as potentially leading to “famines of biblical proportions”. A combination of supply line disruptions, labour and movement restrictions leading to shortfalls, rapidly growing locust swarms, and many other factors are causing this crisis.

Together with the team behind the successful Coronavirus Tech Handbook, we’re designing a Food System Handbook to help compile available resources to tackle the emerging food crisis. This handbook will be a living document that can keep governments and community leaders informed in real time of threats to their food systems and about how to mitigate those threats.

The success of this handbook will be driven by voluntary contributions, and we welcome the EA community’s insights from projects like AMF, GiveWell or Fortify Health as well as the expertise in modelling and data analysis to name some areas. Additionally, we could use support from volunteers (see last paragraphs). To facilitate these contributions, we are holding a virtual launch event from June 11-13. We’re looking for people across private industry, academia, NGOs, government and multilaterals for a real wide range of solutions.

We are aware that this partially overlaps with EAGxVirtual 2020, but full attendance of our event is not necessary. We’d be incredibly appreciative if you could donate just a few hours over these three days to share your expertise.

There will be specific time slots for different regions around the world over the course of the 3 days. To participate, please register for the Food Systems Handbook launch event, where we will keep you informed.

We are thankful to be joined by people from DIFID (the UK's department for International Development), the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), Bayer, the V20 group (Vulnerable Twenty), the University of Oxford, the FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN) and MCII (Munich Climate Insurance Initiative), with many more to come.

We are looking for a few more volunteers who can support us with organizing content in the document. For people interested in contributing this way we have organized a training call on 1st June [6pm UK (GMT+1), 1pm NewYork (EDT) and 10am California (PDT)]. For volunteering write us a quick message at team@ALLFED.info with your timezone and rough availability over the 3 day period.

We’d also be incredibly appreciative if you could share this (with your colleagues, charitable social media groups, food security groups, etc.).

30

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments8


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Aaron Gertler 🔸3
0
0

Together with the team behind the successful Coronavirus Tech Handbook...

What makes you say the Coronavirus Tech Handbook has been successful? I assume it's been useful to many people, but I'm interested in specifics: who's made use of it, what projects have been helped by it, etc.

Reply
Nathan Young4
0
0

The handbook has had over 600k views. It was seen through government and we have seen several similar handbooks built which resemble it. https://simpleanalytics.com/coronavirustechhandbook.com?start=2020-03-07&end=2020-06-07

Reply
Nathan Young3
0
0

Most of this impact was created in the first month with 3.5 full time members of staff. I suggest the cost of this was about £7k. We got about 90k in grants so I am happy to acknowledge that quite a lot of money was spent on less impactful parts of the same project. Though equally, new technology has been built to better serve in the future. In the future, I think this could be replicated by volunteers and therefore more cheaply.

Reply
Nathan Young2
0
0

We have screenshots of doctors asking one another to learn how to split ventilator feeds, make more effective PPE and PPE being delivered using connections from the handbook.

Reply
Nathan Young2
0
0

I would like there to have been better impact measurement

Reply
Nathan Young1
0
0

There were tools that were made as a result of people viewing the handbook. A map for mutual aid groups, for instance which would let people see where groups were close to them

Reply
Nathan Young1
0
0

The largest community created by the site, is Doctors with over 1000 members worldwide. Within a week of that community being created there was a 30 page guide of coronavirus advice. I don't understand why such a guide would have been created if it was easily available elsewhere.

Reply
Nathan Young1
0
0

These are good questions. I am interested in the answers too. I set up the Coronavirus Tech Handbook. I'm going to comment each point as its own comment.

Reply
More from AronM
61
ALLFED's 2023 Highlights
Sonia_Cassidy, AronM, farrah.dingal, Denkenberger🔸+ 1 more
· · 32m read
5
5
100
Food Crisis - Cascading Events from COVID-19 & Locusts
AronM
· · 15m read
14
14
51
Sustained effort, potential, and obligation
AronM
· · 12m read
4
4
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Once we expand to other star systems, we may begin a self-propagating expansion of human civilisation throughout the galaxy. However, there are existential risks potentially capable of destroying a galactic civilisation, like self-replicating machines, strange matter, and vacuum decay. Without an extremely widespread and effective governance system, the eventual creation of a galaxy-ending x-risk seems almost inevitable due to cumulative chances of initiation over time across numerous independent actors. So galactic x-risks may severely limit the total potential value that human civilisation can attain in the long-term future. The requirements for a governance system to prevent galactic x-risks are extremely demanding, and they need it needs to be in place before interstellar colonisation is initiated.  Introduction I recently came across a series of posts from nearly a decade ago, starting with a post by George Dvorsky in io9 called “12 Ways Humanity Could Destroy the Entire Solar System”. It’s a fun post discussing stellar engineering disasters, the potential dangers of warp drives and wormholes, and the delicacy of orbital dynamics.  Anders Sandberg responded to the post on his blog and assessed whether these solar system disasters represented a potential Great Filter to explain the Fermi Paradox, which they did not[1]. However, x-risks to solar system-wide civilisations were certainly possible. Charlie Stross then made a post where he suggested that some of these x-risks could destroy a galactic civilisation too, most notably griefers (von Neumann probes). The fact that it only takes one colony among many to create griefers means that the dispersion and huge population of galactic civilisations[2] may actually be a disadvantage in x-risk mitigation.  In addition to getting through this current period of high x-risk, we should aim to create a civilisation that is able to withstand x-risks for as long as possible so that as much of the value[3] of the univers
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
Tl;dr: In this post, I introduce a concept I call surface area for serendipity — the informal, behind-the-scenes work that makes it easier for others to notice, trust, and collaborate with you. In a job market where some EA and animal advocacy roles attract over 1,300 applicants, relying on traditional applications alone is unlikely to land you a role. This post offers a tactical roadmap to the hidden layer of hiring: small, often unpaid but high-leverage actions that build visibility and trust before a job ever opens. The general principle is simple: show up consistently where your future collaborators or employers hang out — and let your strengths be visible. Done well, this increases your chances of being invited, remembered, or hired — long before you ever apply. Acknowledgements: Thanks to Kevin Xia for your valuable feedback and suggestions, and Toby Tremlett for offering general feedback and encouragement. All mistakes are my own. Why I Wrote This Many community members have voiced their frustration because they have applied for many jobs and have got nowhere. Over the last few years, I’ve had hundreds of conversations with people trying to break into farmed animal advocacy or EA-aligned roles. When I ask whether they’re doing any networking or community engagement, they often shyly say “not really.” What I’ve noticed is that people tend to focus heavily on formal job ads. This makes sense, job ads are common, straightforward and predictable. However, the odds are stacked against them (sometimes 1,300:1 — see this recent Anima hiring round), and they tend to pay too little attention to the unofficial work — the small, informal, often unpaid actions that build trust and relationships long before a job is posted. This post is my attempt to name and explain that hidden layer of how hiring often happens, and to offer a more proactive, human, and strategic path into the work that matters. This isn’t a new idea, but I’ve noticed it’s still rarely discussed o
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Is now the time to add to RP’s great work?     Rethink’s Moral weights project (MWP) is immense and influential. Their work is the most cited “EA” paper written in the last 3 years by a mile - I struggle to think of another that comes close. Almost every animal welfare related post on the forum quotes the MWP headline numbers - usually not as gospel truth, but with confidence. Their numbers carry moral weight[1] moving hearts, minds and money towards animals. To oversimplify, if their numbers are ballpark correct then... 1. Farmed animal welfare interventions outcompete human welfare interventions for cost-effectiveness under most moral positions.[2] 2.  Smaller animal welfare interventions outcompete larger animal welfare if you aren’t risk averse. There are downsides in over-indexing on one research project for too long, especially considering a question this important. The MWP was groundbreaking, and I hope it provides fertile soil for other work to sprout with new approaches and insights. Although the concept of “replicability”  isn't quite as relevant here as with empirical research, I think its important to have multiple attempts at questions this important. Given the strength of the original work, any new work might be lower quality - but perhaps we can live with that. Most people would agree that more deep work needs to happen here at some stage, but the question might be is now the right time to intentionally invest in more?   Arguments against more Moral Weights work 1. It might cost more money than it will add value 2. New researchers are likely to land land on a similar approaches and numbers to RP so what's the point?[3] 3. RP’s work is as good as we are likely to get, why try again and get a probably worse product? 4. We don’t have enough new scientific information since the original project to meaningfully add to the work. 5. So little money goes to animal welfare work  now anyway, we might do more harm than good at least in the short t
Recent opportunities in Biosecurity
38
1Day Sooner Open Phil Funding Request
1Day Sooner
· · 1m read
1
1
14
Last Week to Apply: Oxford Biosecurity Group 2025 Call for Project Proposals
Lin BL
· · 1m read
0
0
3
Beyond Early Warnings - Opportunities for Precision Pandemic Response Strategies
Axby
· · 6m read
1
1
View more