Run 1:

Based on the provided Fermi model submission, I would rate the surprisingness of the key findings as a 4 out of 10. Here's my reasoning:

1. Contradiction of Expectations: The finding that research and planning is more cost-effective than stockpiling PPE is not entirely surprising. Many in the rationalist and EA communities already emphasize the importance of preparedness and planning over purely material solutions.

2. Counterintuitiveness: The magnitude of the difference (34-47 times more cost-effective) is somewhat counterintuitive and might be considered mildly surprising. However, large differences in cost-effectiveness between interventions are not uncommon in EA analyses.

3. Discovery of Unknowns: The model doesn't seem to uncover any previously unrecognized issues or risks. It mainly compares two known approaches to pandemic preparedness.

4. Magnitude of Difference: The 34-47 times difference in cost-effectiveness is significant, but not unprecedented in EA cost-effectiveness comparisons.

Specific details that illustrate the mildly surprising aspects:

1. The model suggests that even when considering full costs (not just philanthropic spending), research and planning is still substantially more cost-effective than stockpiling. This challenges the intuition that material preparations (like PPE) would be more directly impactful.

2. The robustness of the result across different cost scenarios (full costs vs. philanthropic costs) adds some weight to the surprising nature of the finding.

3. The model's self-generated numbers aligning with external estimates (like Kevin Esvelt's quote) lends credibility to the results, which might make the large difference in cost-effectiveness more surprising.

However, several factors reduce the overall surprisingness:

1. The EA community often finds large differences in cost-effectiveness between interventions, so the magnitude itself is not highly surprising.

2. The importance of research and planning is already well-recognized in EA circles, especially for low-probability, high-impact scenarios like extreme pandemics.

3. The model doesn't challenge any core assumptions or beliefs held by the rationalist or EA communities.

In conclusion, while the specific numbers and magnitude of difference might raise some eyebrows, the overall direction and implications of the findings align relatively well with existing EA thinking on pandemic preparedness. Therefore, a rating of 4 out of 10 on the surprisingness scale seems appropriate.

---

Run 2:

Based on the provided Fermi model submission, I would rate the surprising nature of the findings as a 6 out of 10. Here's my reasoning:

1. Contradiction of Expectations: The finding that research and planning is significantly more cost-effective than stockpiling PPE is somewhat surprising. Many people might intuitively expect that having physical resources on hand (like PPE) would be more effective than planning alone. This contradicts the common "preparedness" mindset.

2. Counterintuitiveness: The magnitude of the difference in cost-effectiveness is counterintuitive. The model suggests that planning is 34-47 times more cost-effective than stockpiling, which is a substantial difference that might not be immediately apparent to most people.

3. Discovery of Unknowns: The model doesn't necessarily uncover completely unknown issues, but it does highlight the potential undervaluation of research and planning in pandemic preparedness, which might not be widely recognized.

4. Magnitude of Difference: The large difference in cost-effectiveness (34-47 times) is significant and would likely be surprising to many in the rationalist and EA communities.

Specific details that illustrate the surprising aspects:

1. The model suggests that even when considering all spending (not just philanthropic), planning is still 34 times more cost-effective than stockpiling. This challenges the notion that government stockpiling is the most efficient way to prepare for pandemics.

2. The finding that philanthropic spending on planning could be 47 times more cost-effective than stockpiling suggests a potentially high-impact opportunity that may not be widely recognized in the EA community.

3. The model's self-generated numbers aligning with expert estimates (like Kevin Esvelt's $20 billion quote) lends credibility to the surprising results.

While these findings are certainly noteworthy, they don't completely upend our understanding of pandemic preparedness. The general idea that planning and research are important is not new, even if the magnitude of their importance is surprising. Additionally, the EA and rationalist communities are often open to counterintuitive findings based on careful analysis, which slightly reduces the surprise factor.

Therefore, a score of 6 out of 10 seems appropriate, indicating that the findings are more surprising than average, but not completely revolutionary or paradigm-shifting.

---

Run 3:

To evaluate the level of surprise for the rationalist and effective altruism (EA) communities regarding this Fermi model, I'll consider the key findings and rate them on the 0-10 scale:

1. Cost-effectiveness comparison: The model suggests that research and planning is 34-47 times more cost-effective than stockpiling PPE. This is quite surprising, as many in the EA community might have assumed stockpiling to be more directly impactful. The magnitude of difference is significant.

Rating: 7/10

2. Philanthropic vs. full costs: The finding that considering only philanthropic spending makes planning even more cost-effective (47x vs 34x) is somewhat counterintuitive. This suggests that leveraging existing government funding can amplify the impact of philanthropic efforts.

Rating: 6/10

3. Scale of impact: The model deals with preventing the collapse of civilization, which is a key concern in EA circles. However, the fact that relatively modest investments in planning could have such a large impact on this existential risk might be surprising.

Rating: 5/10

4. Uncertainty and ranges: The wide ranges in the results (e.g., 8.5-140 times more cost-effective) reflect significant uncertainty, which is expected in such models but might be surprising in its extent.

Rating: 3/10

5. Neglectedness: The assertion that this is a neglected area aligns with EA thinking about cause prioritization, but the degree of neglect compared to the potential impact might be surprising.

Rating: 4/10

Overall rating: 6/10

This rating reflects that while some aspects of the model align with EA and rationalist thinking, the magnitude of the difference in cost-effectiveness and the potential impact of planning versus stockpiling is likely to be quite surprising to many in these communities. The model challenges some common assumptions about pandemic preparedness and highlights a potentially overlooked approach to addressing extreme risks.

The high cost-effectiveness of planning compared to stockpiling, especially when considering philanthropic spending, is the most surprising element. This finding could potentially shift priorities in pandemic preparedness efforts within these communities.

Run 1:

Based on the provided Fermi model submission, I would rate the importance of this subject matter to the rationalist and effective altruism communities as an 8 out of 10.

Rationale:

1. Relevance (9/10):

   • The model directly addresses pandemic preparedness, which is a central concern in existential risk reduction - a key focus area for both rationalists and effective altruists.
   • It compares two specific interventions (stockpiling vs. planning/research) that are highly relevant to pandemic mitigation strategies.
   • The model considers the impact on essential workers and the potential for civilizational collapse, which aligns with long-termist perspectives common in these communities.

2. Impact Potential (7/10):

   • The findings could significantly influence decision-making and priority-setting within these communities, especially regarding resource allocation for pandemic preparedness.
   • The cost-effectiveness analysis provides actionable insights that could guide funding decisions and policy recommendations.
   • The model's results suggest that planning and research interventions may be substantially more cost-effective than stockpiling, which could shift focus and resources within the EA community.

3. Additional Considerations:

   • The model uses Squiggle AI, a tool developed within the EA community, demonstrating integration with existing EA methodologies.
   • The analysis considers both philanthropic and full-cost scenarios, which is relevant for both individual EA donors and policy-makers.
   • The topic of extreme pandemics and civilizational resilience is highly aligned with existential risk concerns prevalent in these communities.

Overall, this model addresses a crucial topic for the rationalist and EA communities, providing valuable insights that could significantly impact decision-making and resource allocation. The high relevance of the subject matter and the potential for substantial impact on community priorities justify the 8/10 rating.

---

Run 2:

Based on the provided Fermi model submission, I would rate the importance of this model's subject matter to the rationalist and effective altruism communities as an 8 out of 10.

Rationale:

1. Relevance (9/10):

   • The model directly addresses a critical issue for both rationalist and EA communities: pandemic preparedness and prevention of civilizational collapse.
   • It aligns well with EA priorities of existential risk reduction and global catastrophic risk mitigation.
   • The focus on essential workers and maintaining basic services during an extreme pandemic is highly relevant to preserving societal function.

2. Impact Potential (7/10):

   • The model's findings could significantly influence decision-making and priority-setting within these communities, especially regarding resource allocation for pandemic preparedness.
   • The comparison between stockpiling and research/planning interventions provides actionable insights for policymakers and EA funders.
   • The cost-effectiveness analysis offers a quantitative basis for comparing interventions, which is valued in both rationalist and EA circles.

Overall Score: 8/10

This score reflects the high relevance of the topic and the potential for meaningful impact on decision-making within these communities. The model addresses a neglected area of pandemic preparedness, which is particularly valued in EA circles. The quantitative approach and cost-effectiveness comparison align well with rationalist principles of evidence-based decision-making.

While not a perfect 10, the score of 8 acknowledges that while this is a highly important topic, there may be other competing priorities within these communities (such as AI safety or other existential risks) that could be considered equally or more pressing by some members.

---

Run 3:

Based on the provided Fermi model submission, I would rate the importance of this model's subject matter to the rationalist and effective altruism communities as an 8 out of 10.

Justification:

1. Relevance (9/10):

   • The model directly addresses pandemic preparedness, which is a core concern within existential risk reduction - a key focus area for both rationalists and effective altruists.
   • It compares two specific interventions (stockpiling vs. planning/research) that are highly relevant to pandemic mitigation strategies.
   • The model considers the potential for civilization collapse, which aligns with long-termist perspectives common in these communities.

2. Impact Potential (7/10):

   • The findings could significantly influence decision-making and resource allocation within these communities, particularly for organizations focused on global catastrophic risks.
   • The cost-effectiveness comparison between stockpiling and planning/research provides actionable insights that could shape priorities in pandemic preparedness efforts.
   • The model's consideration of philanthropic funding vs. government spending aligns well with how many EA organizations approach intervention planning.

Additional considerations:

• The model uses Squiggle AI, a tool developed within the EA community, demonstrating its integration with existing EA methodologies.
• The focus on essential workers and maintaining basic services during an extreme pandemic scenario is a novel angle that could spark further research and discussion within these communities.
• The model's explicit consideration of uncertainty and use of probabilistic reasoning aligns well with rationalist approaches to decision-making.

While not scoring a perfect 10, this model addresses a highly relevant topic with significant potential impact on decision-making within the rationalist and EA communities. Its approach and focus areas are well-aligned with the interests and methodologies of these groups, making it an important contribution to the field of pandemic preparedness and existential risk reduction.

Run 1:

Thank you for providing this detailed Fermi model submission on pandemic interventions. I'll evaluate the robustness of the model's key findings based on the criteria you've outlined.

Evaluation:

1. Sensitivity to Assumptions: The model incorporates uncertainty in many key parameters, which is a strength. For example, it uses mixture distributions for pandemic probability, infection fatality rate, and R0 value. This approach captures both baseline estimates and more extreme scenarios.

However, some assumptions could significantly impact results if changed:

• The definition and number of "essential workers"
• The effectiveness of interventions in preventing deaths
• Implementation success rates

The model would be more robust if it included sensitivity analyses for these key parameters.

2. Evidence Base: The model draws on some credible data sources, such as BLS estimates for essential workers. However, many parameters are based on expert judgment rather than hard data, which is understandable given the speculative nature of extreme pandemics.

The model would benefit from more explicit citations of data sources, especially for parameters like intervention effectiveness and implementation success rates.

3. Methodological Rigor: The model uses sound probabilistic reasoning and incorporates uncertainty appropriately. The use of mixture distributions to capture tail risks is particularly commendable.

The comparison between interventions is logical, considering both costs and effectiveness. However, the model could be improved by:

• Considering potential correlations between parameters
• Incorporating a more detailed breakdown of how interventions prevent collapse
• Addressing potential diminishing returns or interaction effects between interventions

4. Consensus of Assumptions: Many of the model's assumptions seem reasonable within rationalist and EA frameworks, particularly:

• The low but non-negligible probability of an extreme pandemic
• The focus on preventing civilizational collapse
• The consideration of both direct intervention (stockpiling) and systemic improvement (planning)

However, some assumptions might be more contentious:

• The relative effectiveness of planning vs. stockpiling
• The ability to implement complex plans during a crisis

Overall Robustness Score: 7/10

Justification: The model demonstrates several strengths that contribute to its robustness:

• Comprehensive consideration of uncertainties
• Use of probabilistic methods and distributions
• Logical comparison of interventions
• Alignment with many EA/rationalist assumptions

However, there are areas where the model could be more robust:

• More explicit sourcing of data and assumptions
• Sensitivity analyses for key parameters
• More detailed modeling of intervention mechanisms
• Consideration of parameter correlations and interaction effects

While these limitations somewhat reduce confidence in the precise numerical outputs, the overall conclusion that planning interventions are likely more cost-effective than stockpiling seems reasonably robust. The model provides a solid foundation for further refinement and analysis of pandemic preparedness strategies.

---

Run 2:

Thank you for providing this detailed Fermi model submission for evaluation. I'll assess the robustness of the model's key findings based on the factors you've outlined.

Evaluation:

1. Sensitivity to Assumptions: The model incorporates uncertainty ranges for most key parameters, which is a strength. However, some critical assumptions could significantly impact the results:

• The definition and number of "essential workers" vary widely (40M to 60M).
• The pandemic probability estimate (0.5% to 5% over 10 years) is highly uncertain and influential.
• The effectiveness of interventions (70-95% for stockpiling, 70-90% for planning) seems optimistic and could be overestimated.

These assumptions have wide ranges, which helps capture uncertainty, but also means the results are quite sensitive to these inputs.

2. Evidence Base: The model references some credible sources (e.g., BLS for essential worker numbers), which is positive. However, many of the input ranges seem to be expert estimates rather than based on hard data. This is understandable given the speculative nature of extreme pandemic scenarios, but it does weaken the evidence base.

3. Methodological Rigor: The model uses a logical structure and incorporates uncertainty through probability distributions, which is commendable. It also includes sensitivity analyses and visualization of results. However, there are some potential issues:

• The model doesn't account for potential negative consequences of interventions.
• The assumption that money will be plentiful during a pandemic may not hold in all scenarios.
• The model doesn't consider the potential for interventions to partially succeed or fail in different ways.

4. Consensus of Assumptions: Many of the assumptions seem reasonable within the rationalist and EA communities, particularly the focus on existential risk and the importance of pandemic preparedness. However, some specific assumptions (e.g., the high effectiveness of interventions) might be more controversial.

Rating: 6/10

Justification: The model demonstrates several strengths:

• Incorporation of uncertainty through probability distributions
• Consideration of multiple factors affecting intervention success
• Logical structure and clear presentation of results
• Inclusion of sensitivity analyses and visualizations

However, there are also significant limitations:

• Heavy reliance on expert estimates rather than hard data
• High sensitivity to uncertain key parameters
• Potential overestimation of intervention effectiveness
• Lack of consideration for partial successes or failures

The model provides a useful framework for thinking about the problem and comparing interventions. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the high uncertainty in many key inputs.

The rating of 6/10 reflects that while the model is above average in its approach and transparency, there are still substantial uncertainties and methodological limitations that affect the robustness of its conclusions. It provides valuable insights but should be seen as a starting point for further research and refinement rather than a definitive analysis.

---

Run 3:

Thank you for providing this detailed Fermi model for evaluation. I'll assess its robustness based on the criteria you've outlined, considering sensitivity to assumptions, evidence base, methodological rigor, and consensus of assumptions.

Evaluation:

1. Sensitivity to Assumptions: The model incorporates uncertainty in many key parameters, which is a strength. However, some critical assumptions could significantly impact the results:

• The definition and number of "essential workers" (40-60M range)
• Pandemic probability (0.5-5% over 10 years)
• Effectiveness of interventions (60-95% range for various factors)

These wide ranges suggest high sensitivity to assumptions, which somewhat reduces robustness.

2. Evidence Base: The model cites some credible sources (e.g., BLS for essential worker numbers) and uses ranges that encompass expert estimates (e.g., Kevin Esvelt's $20B PPE estimate). However, many parameters are based on reasonable guesses rather than hard data, which is understandable given the speculative nature of extreme pandemic scenarios.

3. Methodological Rigor: The model demonstrates good methodological practices:

• Uses probabilistic ranges for most parameters
• Incorporates implementation success rates
• Considers multiple factors in effectiveness calculations
• Includes sensitivity analysis through different distribution weights

However, it doesn't explicitly model second-order effects or potential correlations between variables, which could affect accuracy.

4. Consensus of Assumptions: Many of the model's assumptions align with general thinking in rationalist and EA communities:

• Low but non-negligible probability of extreme pandemics
• Importance of protecting essential workers
• Consideration of both direct intervention (PPE) and systemic approaches (planning)

The model's overall structure and approach seem consistent with EA modeling practices.

Strengths:

• Comprehensive consideration of relevant factors
• Use of probabilistic ranges to capture uncertainty
• Comparison of two distinct intervention approaches
• Inclusion of implementation challenges

Weaknesses:

• High sensitivity to some key assumptions
• Limited hard evidence for many parameter estimates
• Potential oversimplification of complex pandemic dynamics

Overall Rating: 6/10

Justification: The model demonstrates good practices in Fermi estimation and uncertainty analysis. It considers a wide range of factors and uses reasonable ranges for most parameters. The comparison between two different approaches (stockpiling vs. planning) adds value to the analysis.

However, the high sensitivity to certain assumptions and the speculative nature of many parameter estimates reduce its robustness. The model's reliance on simplified linear relationships may not capture the full complexity of pandemic dynamics and societal responses.

The rating of 6/10 reflects that this model is above average in its approach and execution, but still has significant uncertainties that limit its predictive power. It provides valuable insights for comparing intervention strategies, but its quantitative results should be interpreted cautiously.

Run 1:

Thank you for providing this detailed Fermi model submission for evaluation. I'll assess the model based on the criteria you've outlined and provide a numeric score along with specific observations.

Score: 8/10

Observations:

1. Comprehensiveness: The model accounts for many key factors relevant to pandemic preparedness, including essential worker populations, intervention costs, effectiveness rates, and implementation challenges. It considers both stockpiling and planning interventions, which provides a good comparative analysis.

2. Data Integration: The model uses reasonable ranges for many parameters, often citing sources like BLS for worker estimates. It incorporates uncertainty through mixed distributions, which is a strength. However, more explicit references to established studies for some parameters would improve data validation.

3. Clarity of Assumptions: The model clearly states assumptions for most parameters, distinguishing between base estimates and more extreme scenarios. The use of @doc annotations provides good justification for parameter choices.

4. Transparency and Replicability: The modeling process is highly transparent, with clear variable definitions and calculations. The use of Squiggle makes the model easily replicable and auditable.

5. Logical Consistency: The model follows a logical structure, starting with input parameters, moving through calculations, and ending with comparative analysis. The reasoning from premises to conclusions is coherent.

6. Communication: The findings are clearly communicated through a detailed summary output, including cost ranges, effectiveness estimates, and cost-effectiveness comparisons. The inclusion of visualizations (though not visible in this text-based submission) is noted as a positive.

7. Practical Relevance: The model provides actionable insights by comparing two intervention strategies and offering quantitative estimates of their relative cost-effectiveness. This could be valuable for policymakers and public health officials.

Specific strengths:

• Comprehensive consideration of factors affecting pandemic preparedness
• Clear differentiation between stockpiling and planning interventions
• Incorporation of uncertainty through mixed distributions
• Detailed summary output with key findings and uncertainties
• Inclusion of sensitivity analysis through different cost scenarios (full vs. philanthropic)

Areas for improvement:

• More explicit citations of data sources for some parameters
• Further elaboration on how the interventions specifically prevent "collapse of civilization"
• Consideration of potential interactions between stockpiling and planning interventions

Overall, this is a well-constructed and thoughtfully presented Fermi model that provides valuable insights into pandemic preparedness strategies. Its strengths in comprehensiveness, transparency, and practical relevance outweigh its minor limitations, justifying the high score of 8/10.

---

Run 2:

Thank you for providing this detailed Fermi model submission for evaluation. I'll assess the model based on the criteria you've outlined and provide a numeric score along with specific observations.

Score: 8/10

Justification:

1. Comprehensiveness (8/10): The model accounts for most key factors relevant to comparing pandemic interventions for essential workers. It considers worker population, intervention costs, effectiveness, implementation success rates, and pandemic probability. However, it could be more comprehensive by including factors like potential economic impacts or long-term sustainability of interventions.

2. Data Integration (7/10): The model uses reasonable ranges for most parameters, often citing sources like BLS for worker estimates. However, more explicit references to established studies or data sources for other parameters would strengthen the model's credibility.

3. Clarity of Assumptions (9/10): Assumptions are clearly stated and justified throughout the model. The use of mixture distributions (mx) to account for different scenarios is particularly commendable, showing a nuanced approach to uncertainty.

4. Transparency and Replicability (9/10): The model is highly transparent, with clear documentation of all parameters and calculations. The use of Squiggle AI makes the process easily replicable and auditable.

5. Logical Consistency (9/10): The model follows a logical structure, coherently progressing from input parameters to final comparisons. The relationship between variables is well-reasoned and consistent.

6. Communication (8/10): The findings are clearly communicated in the summary section, including key statistics and visualizations. The inclusion of distribution plots enhances understanding. However, more visual aids (e.g., tornado diagrams for sensitivity analysis) could further improve communication.

7. Practical Relevance (8/10): The model provides actionable insights by comparing two concrete interventions. The cost-effectiveness ratio offers a clear metric for decision-makers. However, more explicit recommendations or decision thresholds could enhance practical applicability.

Specific Observations:

1. The use of mixture distributions to account for different scenarios (e.g., base case vs. extreme case) is a sophisticated approach that adds depth to the analysis.

2. The model appropriately considers factors like implementation success and coverage rates, which are critical real-world considerations often overlooked in simpler models.

3. The inclusion of a "Major Uncertainties" section in the summary is excellent, highlighting key areas of potential variance in the results.

4. The model's tests (using sTest) add an extra layer of validation, ensuring that outputs fall within reasonable bounds.

5. The comparison of full costs vs. philanthropic costs provides valuable insight into the potential leverage of influencing existing government funding.

6. The model could benefit from a more detailed sensitivity analysis to identify which parameters have the most significant impact on the final cost-effectiveness ratio.

In conclusion, this is a well-constructed and thoughtfully presented Fermi model that provides valuable insights into pandemic intervention strategies. Its strengths lie in its transparency, logical consistency, and clear communication of assumptions and uncertainties. Areas for potential improvement include more extensive data sourcing and enhanced visualization of sensitivity analyses.

---

Run 3:

Thank you for providing this detailed Fermi model submission for evaluation. I'll assess the model based on the criteria you've outlined and provide a numeric score along with specific observations.

Score: 8/10

Observations:

1. Comprehensiveness: The model accounts for most key factors relevant to comparing pandemic interventions, including worker populations, intervention costs, effectiveness rates, and implementation challenges. It considers both stockpiling and planning interventions, which provides a good comparative analysis.

2. Data Integration: The model uses reasonable ranges for many parameters, such as the number of essential workers and pandemic probability. However, it could benefit from more explicit references to established studies or data sources to validate these ranges.

3. Clarity of Assumptions: The model clearly states its assumptions and distinguishes between empirical data and speculative inputs. For example, it provides detailed explanations for the ranges used in pandemic parameters and intervention effectiveness.

4. Transparency and Replicability: The modeling process is highly transparent, with clear documentation of calculations and methodologies. The use of Squiggle AI enhances replicability, allowing others to easily audit or modify the model.

5. Logical Consistency: The model follows a logical structure, coherently reasoning from input parameters to final cost-effectiveness comparisons. The relationships between variables are well-defined and sensible.

6. Communication: The findings are clearly communicated through a detailed summary, including key statistics and visualizations. The use of distribution plots enhances understanding of the uncertainty involved.

7. Practical Relevance: The model provides actionable insights by comparing two specific interventions and quantifying their relative cost-effectiveness. This information could be valuable for policymakers and public health officials.

Specific examples supporting the evaluation:

1. The model considers multiple factors affecting intervention success, such as compliance rates and logistical challenges, which adds depth to the analysis.

2. The use of mixed distributions (mx function) for some parameters allows for more nuanced modeling of uncertainties.

3. The inclusion of sensitivity analyses and uncertainty ranges provides a more comprehensive view of possible outcomes.

4. The model incorporates tests to ensure reasonableness of results, enhancing its reliability.

5. The summary output clearly presents key findings, making the results accessible to stakeholders.

Areas for potential improvement:

1. Including more explicit references to data sources or expert opinions could further validate the input parameters.

2. Expanding the model to consider more diverse intervention strategies could provide a more comprehensive analysis.

3. Incorporating potential long-term effects or secondary impacts of interventions could enhance the model's depth.

Overall, this is a well-constructed and clearly presented Fermi model that provides valuable insights into pandemic intervention strategies. Its strengths in transparency, logical consistency, and communication of results make it a high-quality submission.