Sarrin Chethik

57 posts

Sarrin Chethik

Sarrin Chethik

@schethik

@UChi_MSA Views are my own

Washington, DC Katılım Ekim 2015
194 Takip Edilen62 Takipçiler
Jeremy Horpedahl 🥚📉
The reason the US spends more on healthcare than other countries is because we are richer and healthcare is a normal good. The reason we don't get as good health outcomes is largely because of murders, car accidents, and drug ODs (explains half of the gap or so)
Jeremy Horpedahl 🥚📉 tweet media
Andreas Steno Larsen@AndreasSteno

I hate high taxes, but why anyone would die on the hill defending the U.S. healthcare system is beyond my understanding. You can't find a system anywhere on Earth that delivers worse value for money. Incredibly expensive. Mediocre outcome.

English
107
137
849
103K
Sarrin Chethik retweetledi
Center for Global Development
Models suggest we could see ~3 COVID-scale pandemics this century. COVID showed that recovery slows and access suffers when vaccine manufacturing capacity is limited. Nearly a year after authorizations, only 9% of Africans were fully vaccinated. How do we avoid this bottleneck?
English
1
2
3
2.3K
Sarrin Chethik
Sarrin Chethik@schethik·
Vaccine development is not just about science. It’s about strategically investing in R&D and manufacturing capacity. Read more details here: tinyurl.com/4tjas2s2 + great working w @rglenner, Catherine Che, @clairetmcmahon, and Christopher Snyder on this
English
0
0
1
38
Sarrin Chethik
Sarrin Chethik@schethik·
5/ Finally, use vaccines efficiently. Prioritize high-risk groups and consider fractional dosing. One estimate found vaccinating the highest-risk 20% could cut COVID mortality by 80%.
English
1
0
3
67
Sarrin Chethik
Sarrin Chethik@schethik·
In DCP4 Vol. 2, we summarize how governments, foundations, and multilateral orgs can make smarter vaccine investments before and during pandemics. Here are five recommendations 🧵
World Bank Group Publications@WBGPubs

#DCP4 Vol 2 highlights essential health system investments, #PublicHealth measures, and medical countermeasures to help countries prepare for and respond to future #pandemics. 📗Learn more and explore all chapters: wrld.bg/3usC50XuucQ

English
1
2
7
3.4K
Sarrin Chethik
Sarrin Chethik@schethik·
If you have expertise in auction design (esp electricity capacity markets), I'd be very curious what you think of EU HERA's vaccine capacity contracts or optimal design of vaccine/other countermeasure capacity markets in general 👀
Sarrin Chethik@schethik

2/ Also in preparation, pay for “warm” vaccine manufacturing capacity and the workforce needed to run it. We already do something similar in the electricity sector, where “capacity markets” help ensure there’s enough reserve energy generation available for very hot days.

English
1
0
2
110
Sarrin Chethik retweetledi
Nan Ransohoff
Nan Ransohoff@nanransohoff·
Really neat new tool by the folks at @IFP to help find the best funding mechanism based on the problem you're trying ot solve.
Matt Esche@matthewesche

At @IFP, we’ve spent the past 3 years thinking about all the different ways the US government & philanthropy fund R&D. Until now, R&D funders haven’t had a systematic way to match the innovation problem to the right funding tool. We built THE ATLAS OF INNOVATION to fill that gap. atlasofinnovation.org Alongside @UChi_MSA, we’ve boiled down thousands of hours of research into a handful of questions covering how much the R&D funder knows about: - the problem they want to solve - the solution it should have - the team that should build the solution Why the Atlas matters: The US government spends close to $200 billion every year on R&D. And after the Anthropic and OpenAI IPOs, there will be hundreds of billions of dollars in new philanthropic giving. Choosing the correct funding approach to the social problems they’re trying to solve will mean the difference between success and failure. For example, NSF research grants have helped seed breakthroughs from MRI machines to search engines, but grants aren’t built to deliver the kind of industrial speed and scale that a project like Operation Warp Speed required. Picking the wrong funding approach can leave programs behind schedule, over budget, or without anything to show for all the money they spent. How we built the Atlas: 1. We began by creating a matrix of dozens of considerations that a thoughtful policymaker or funder would ideally weigh before deciding how to fund a project. 2. We looked at every major funding approach, from grants to R&D tax credits to advance market commitments, analyzing when they work well and when they fail to meet the mission. 3. We spent months deep in the weeds of contract theory and incentive design, looking at historical examples and the state-of-the-art research in innovation economics. 4. We then worked to turn that research into a tool that time-strapped policymakers and philanthropic funders could rely on at the start of an innovation funding cycle. 5. Three years later, we are launching just that: a new (and visually stunning) website to help funders decide how to best incentivize innovation. And all they have to know… is what they currently know about their innovation goal! The Atlas takes care of the rest. How to navigate the Atlas: Answer questions about your goal to find the funding approach aligned with the information you have. Each funding mechanism has its purpose for particular technologies and specific moments in development. There shouldn’t be an ARPA for every field, just like we don’t need a prize or AMC for every innovation. The Atlas helps you navigate those tradeoffs.

English
1
13
61
12.4K
Sarrin Chethik retweetledi
Noah Smith 🐇🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼
IFP continues to be the coolest think tank in the country
Matt Esche@matthewesche

At @IFP, we’ve spent the past 3 years thinking about all the different ways the US government & philanthropy fund R&D. Until now, R&D funders haven’t had a systematic way to match the innovation problem to the right funding tool. We built THE ATLAS OF INNOVATION to fill that gap. atlasofinnovation.org Alongside @UChi_MSA, we’ve boiled down thousands of hours of research into a handful of questions covering how much the R&D funder knows about: - the problem they want to solve - the solution it should have - the team that should build the solution Why the Atlas matters: The US government spends close to $200 billion every year on R&D. And after the Anthropic and OpenAI IPOs, there will be hundreds of billions of dollars in new philanthropic giving. Choosing the correct funding approach to the social problems they’re trying to solve will mean the difference between success and failure. For example, NSF research grants have helped seed breakthroughs from MRI machines to search engines, but grants aren’t built to deliver the kind of industrial speed and scale that a project like Operation Warp Speed required. Picking the wrong funding approach can leave programs behind schedule, over budget, or without anything to show for all the money they spent. How we built the Atlas: 1. We began by creating a matrix of dozens of considerations that a thoughtful policymaker or funder would ideally weigh before deciding how to fund a project. 2. We looked at every major funding approach, from grants to R&D tax credits to advance market commitments, analyzing when they work well and when they fail to meet the mission. 3. We spent months deep in the weeds of contract theory and incentive design, looking at historical examples and the state-of-the-art research in innovation economics. 4. We then worked to turn that research into a tool that time-strapped policymakers and philanthropic funders could rely on at the start of an innovation funding cycle. 5. Three years later, we are launching just that: a new (and visually stunning) website to help funders decide how to best incentivize innovation. And all they have to know… is what they currently know about their innovation goal! The Atlas takes care of the rest. How to navigate the Atlas: Answer questions about your goal to find the funding approach aligned with the information you have. Each funding mechanism has its purpose for particular technologies and specific moments in development. There shouldn’t be an ARPA for every field, just like we don’t need a prize or AMC for every innovation. The Atlas helps you navigate those tradeoffs.

English
0
11
117
30.2K
Sarrin Chethik
Sarrin Chethik@schethik·
We may iterate on the Atlas, so feedback is welcome. Would you focus on different cruxes than problem/solution clarity and confidence in identifying the best team? Are private information and interest in encouraging competition better heuristics? Are we missing funding tools?
English
0
1
3
134
Sarrin Chethik
Sarrin Chethik@schethik·
Explore the Atlas of Innovation! We just built an interactive site that helps policymakers / philanthropists / MDBs navigate HOW to best fund science/tech programs. It's built w the idea that the funding tool, such as a prize or grant, has a big impact on a program's success.
Matt Esche@matthewesche

At @IFP, we’ve spent the past 3 years thinking about all the different ways the US government & philanthropy fund R&D. Until now, R&D funders haven’t had a systematic way to match the innovation problem to the right funding tool. We built THE ATLAS OF INNOVATION to fill that gap. atlasofinnovation.org Alongside @UChi_MSA, we’ve boiled down thousands of hours of research into a handful of questions covering how much the R&D funder knows about: - the problem they want to solve - the solution it should have - the team that should build the solution Why the Atlas matters: The US government spends close to $200 billion every year on R&D. And after the Anthropic and OpenAI IPOs, there will be hundreds of billions of dollars in new philanthropic giving. Choosing the correct funding approach to the social problems they’re trying to solve will mean the difference between success and failure. For example, NSF research grants have helped seed breakthroughs from MRI machines to search engines, but grants aren’t built to deliver the kind of industrial speed and scale that a project like Operation Warp Speed required. Picking the wrong funding approach can leave programs behind schedule, over budget, or without anything to show for all the money they spent. How we built the Atlas: 1. We began by creating a matrix of dozens of considerations that a thoughtful policymaker or funder would ideally weigh before deciding how to fund a project. 2. We looked at every major funding approach, from grants to R&D tax credits to advance market commitments, analyzing when they work well and when they fail to meet the mission. 3. We spent months deep in the weeds of contract theory and incentive design, looking at historical examples and the state-of-the-art research in innovation economics. 4. We then worked to turn that research into a tool that time-strapped policymakers and philanthropic funders could rely on at the start of an innovation funding cycle. 5. Three years later, we are launching just that: a new (and visually stunning) website to help funders decide how to best incentivize innovation. And all they have to know… is what they currently know about their innovation goal! The Atlas takes care of the rest. How to navigate the Atlas: Answer questions about your goal to find the funding approach aligned with the information you have. Each funding mechanism has its purpose for particular technologies and specific moments in development. There shouldn’t be an ARPA for every field, just like we don’t need a prize or AMC for every innovation. The Atlas helps you navigate those tradeoffs.

English
1
3
9
1.5K