Drake Thomas's Shortform

I agree, zinc lozenges seem like they're probably really worthwhile (even in the milder-benefit worlds)! My less-ecstatic tone is only relative to the promise of older lesswrong posts [LW · GW] that suggested it could basically solve all viral respiratory infections, but maybe I should have made the "but actually though, buy some zinc lozenges" takeaway more explicit. 

Note that the lozenges dissolve slowly, so (bad news) you'd have the taste around for a while but (good news) it's really not a very strong peppermint flavor while it's in your mouth, and in my experience it doesn't really have much of the menthol-triggered cooling effect. My guess is that you would still find it unpleasant, but I think there's a decent chance you won't really mind. I don't know of other zinc acetate brands, but I haven't looked carefully; as of 2019 the claim on this podcast was that only Life Extension brand are any good.

Earlier discussion on LW on zinc lozenges effectiveness mentioned that other flavorings which make it taste nice actually prevent the zinc effect.

From this comment [LW(p) · GW(p)] by philh (quite a chain of quotes haha):

According to a podcast that seemed like the host knew what he was talking about, you also need the lozenges to not contain any additional ingredients that might make them taste nice, like vitamin C. (If it tastes nice, the zinc isn’t binding in the right place. Bad taste doesn’t mean it’s working, but good taste means it’s not.) As of a few years ago, that brand of lozenge was apparently the only one on the market that would work. More info: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/un2fgBad4uqqwm9sH/is-this-info-on-zinc-lozenges-accurate [LW · GW]

That's why the peppermint zinc acetate lozenge from Life Extension is the recommended one. So your only other option might be somehow finding unflavored zinc lozenges, which might taste even worse? Not sure where that might be available

My impression is that since zinc inhibits viral replication, it's most useful in the regime where viral populations are still growing and your body hasn't figured out how to beat the virus yet. So getting started ASAP is good, but it's likely helpful for the first 2-3 days of the illness.

An important part of the model here that I don't understand yet is how your body's immune response varies as a function of viral populations - e.g. two models you could have are 

1. As soon as any immune cell in your body has ever seen a virus, a fixed scale-up of immune response begins, and you're sick until that scale-up exceeds viral populations.
2. Immune response progress is proportional to current viral population, and you get better as soon as total progress crosses some threshold.

If we simplistically assume* that badness of cold = current viral population, then in world 1 you're really happy to take zinc as soon as you have just a bit of virus and will get better quickly without ever being very sick. In world 2, the zinc has no effect at all on total badness experienced, it just affects the duration over which you experience that badness.

*this is false, tbc - I think you generally keep having symptoms a while after viral load becomes very low, because a lot of symptoms are from immune response rather than the virus itself.

On my model of what's going on, you probably want the lozenges to spend a while dissolving, so that you have fairly continuous exposure of throat and nasal tissue to the zinc ions. I find that they taste bad and astringent if I actively suck on them but are pretty unobtrusive if they just gradually dissolve over an hour or two (sounds like you had a similar experience). I sometimes cut the lozenges in half and let each half dissolve so that they fit into my mouth more easily, you might want to give that a try?

The 2019 LW post [LW · GW] discusses a podcast which talks a lot about gears-y models and proposed mechanisms; as I understand it, the high level "zinc ions inhibit viral replication" model is fairly well accepted, but some of the details around which brands are best aren't as well-attested elsewhere in the literature. For instance, many of these studies don't use zinc acetate, which this podcast would suggest is best. (To its credit, the 2013 meta-analysis does find that acetate is (nonsignificantly) better than gluconate, though not radically so.)

I think my original comment was ambiguous - I also consider myself to have mostly figured it out, in that I thought through these considerations pretty extensively before joining and am in a "monitoring for new considerations or evidence or events that might affect my assessment" state rather than a "just now orienting to the question" state. I'd expect to be most useful to people in shoes similar to my past self (deciding whether to apply or accept an offer) but am pretty happy to talk to anyone, including eg people who are confident I'm wrong and want to convince me otherwise.

The way I'd think about this: You should have at least 3 good plans for what you would do that you really believe in, and at least one of them should be significantly different from what you are currently doing. I find this really valuable for avoiding accidental inertia, motivated reasoning, or just regular ol' tunnel vision.

I remain fairly confused about Anthropic despite having thought about it a lot, but in my experience "have two alternate plans you really believe in" is a sort of necessary step for thinking clearly about one's mainline plan.

Yeah, I agree that you should care about more than just the sign bit. I tend to think the magnitude of effects of such work is large enough that "positive sign" often is enough information to decide that it dominates many alternatives, though certainly not all of them. (I also have some kind of virtue-ethical sensitivity to the zero point of the impacts of my direct work, even if second-order effects like skill building or intra-lab influence might make things look robustly good from a consequentialist POV.)

The offer of the parent comment is more narrowly scoped, because I don't think I'm especially well suited to evaluate someone else's comparative advantages but do have helpful things to say on the tradeoffs of that particular career choice. Definitely don't mean to suggest that people (including myself) should take on capability-focused roles iff they're net good!

I did think a fair bit about comparative advantage and the space of alternatives when deciding to accept my offer; I've put much less work into exploration since then, arguably too much less (eg I suspect I don't quite meet Raemon's bar). Generally happy to get randomly pitched on things, I suppose! 

@Drake Thomas [LW · GW] are you interested in talking about other opportunities that might be better for the world than your current position (and meet other preferences of yours)? Or are you primarily interested in the "is my current position net positive or net negative for the world" question?