The reason not to do something like this is because it wouldn’t work, not because it’s not approved by an official “ethics board”.
Informing volunteers would be relatively easy and I definitely don’t think the post author was proposing not informing participants of the risks.
I do agree that this should be its own project, separate from this site.
I also don’t think this would likely produce good-enough data. I’m not confident that enough participants could be found, and verified, as having followed any protocol that could be designed (e.g. provide sufficient evidence of them being infected and at a low dose).
What if all participants have to post a video of themselves taking a test that shows that they’re negative for COVID, and then of performing the variolation protocol?
Good tests will test positive a few days after a person gets infected and also take time to verify that the person has the virus.
Where I’m living in Germany people are also joking that the easiest way to get the virus might be to go get tested because that puts you into an envirioment where you are more likely to meet other patients.
A simple rule can be that anyone who has been self-quarantining for 14+ days can be considered negative at the start of the test. We wouldn’t lose that much data quality with that rule IMO.
That’s a good idea, but it doesn’t seem like tests will be widespread anytime soon, and maybe not available to individuals for even longer (or ever).
But the video idea is good. And maybe it could be used for participants to rehearse both the testing and variolation protocols before performing them for real.
Yes the study could have everyone get ready to kick off as soon as tests are widely distributed. Or it can just use proxy tests like temperature, heart rate and oxygen saturation. The study has the luxury of potentially compromising accuracy on one or two major variables because it’s looking to detect a 3-30x effect.
The problem is not directly the ethics board disagreeing, but that you need institutional protection for otherwise an angry prosecutor who wants to do something to reduce the spread about the disease can easily throw you into prison.
Ethic board approval would be a way to build up protection against that kind of institutional attack.
I don’t think your information video will prevent you from going to prison for manslaughter when someone in your study dies from it.
You are pointing out real costs to this idea and I don’t disagree that what you describe are real risks.
But it seems extremely unlikely – effectively impossible – that anything like this would ever be approved by an “ethics board” so seeking approval would be a waste of resources.
Someone, or some group of people, being prosecuted or risking being prosecuted would potentially be a heroic sacrifice – not a flagrant mistake.
The reason not to do something like this is because it wouldn’t work, not because it’s not approved by an official “ethics board”.
Informing volunteers would be relatively easy and I definitely don’t think the post author was proposing not informing participants of the risks.
I do agree that this should be its own project, separate from this site.
I also don’t think this would likely produce good-enough data. I’m not confident that enough participants could be found, and verified, as having followed any protocol that could be designed (e.g. provide sufficient evidence of them being infected and at a low dose).
What if all participants have to post a video of themselves taking a test that shows that they’re negative for COVID, and then of performing the variolation protocol?
Good tests will test positive a few days after a person gets infected and also take time to verify that the person has the virus.
Where I’m living in Germany people are also joking that the easiest way to get the virus might be to go get tested because that puts you into an envirioment where you are more likely to meet other patients.
A simple rule can be that anyone who has been self-quarantining for 14+ days can be considered negative at the start of the test. We wouldn’t lose that much data quality with that rule IMO.
That’s a good idea, but it doesn’t seem like tests will be widespread anytime soon, and maybe not available to individuals for even longer (or ever).
But the video idea is good. And maybe it could be used for participants to rehearse both the testing and variolation protocols before performing them for real.
Yes the study could have everyone get ready to kick off as soon as tests are widely distributed. Or it can just use proxy tests like temperature, heart rate and oxygen saturation. The study has the luxury of potentially compromising accuracy on one or two major variables because it’s looking to detect a 3-30x effect.
The problem is not directly the ethics board disagreeing, but that you need institutional protection for otherwise an angry prosecutor who wants to do something to reduce the spread about the disease can easily throw you into prison.
Ethic board approval would be a way to build up protection against that kind of institutional attack.
I don’t think your information video will prevent you from going to prison for manslaughter when someone in your study dies from it.
You are pointing out real costs to this idea and I don’t disagree that what you describe are real risks.
But it seems extremely unlikely – effectively impossible – that anything like this would ever be approved by an “ethics board” so seeking approval would be a waste of resources.
Someone, or some group of people, being prosecuted or risking being prosecuted would potentially be a heroic sacrifice – not a flagrant mistake.
The lead of the study can be in a country that is unlikely to prosecute, or anonymous.