Scott analyzes whether whole-body screening MRIs are worth it by doing a detailed cost-benefit calculation, finding they cost about $108,000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved (right around the threshold of cost-effectiveness), and argues that while rich people immune to anxiety might benefit, most people claiming to be rational about medical decisions probably aren't. Longer summary

Scott performs a detailed cost-benefit analysis of whole-body screening MRIs in response to controversy over medical experts recommending against them. Using rough order-of-magnitude estimates, he calculates that screening 1,000 people saves about 32 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at a cost of $2.7 million plus time and anxiety costs, working out to about $108,000 per QALY saved—right at the threshold of cost-effectiveness. He explores whether rich people who don't care about money should get screened, finding a plausible case but with many caveats about unknown factors that could swing the calculation either way. He then applies this analysis to Midjourney's proposed ultrasound scanner, finding it's unlikely to be clearly better than MRI. The post ends with a warning that people who think they're rational enough to ignore false positives are often the same people making irrational medical decisions based on contrarian appeals. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the concept of 'Pascalian Medicine', weighing the pros and cons of taking multiple unproven but potentially beneficial treatments. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Pascalian Medicine', where one takes multiple unproven but safe treatments based on a small chance they might work. He discusses this in the context of COVID-19 treatments like Vitamin D and ivermectin, and extends it to other conditions. The post examines arguments for and against this approach, including safety concerns, societal impacts, and the risk of being exploited by bad actors. Scott concludes that while this strategy might work for individuals, it's problematic on a societal level, and reconciling inside and outside views on the probability of treatments working remains challenging. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques the FDA's slow approval process for Paxlovid, a promising COVID-19 treatment, despite its proven effectiveness. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the FDA's delay in approving Paxlovid, a highly effective COVID-19 treatment. He criticizes the FDA for taking an estimated six weeks to approve the drug despite stopping trials early due to its effectiveness. The post explores the inconsistency in the FDA's approach, questions potential reasons for the delay, and emphasizes the urgency of approval given the ongoing COVID-19 deaths. Scott also addresses potential criticisms by comparing the situation to ivermectin and acknowledging the risk of unforeseen issues with Paxlovid. Shorter summary