Phillip Alvelda

Social

Dr. Phillip Alvelda, is the CEO and Chairman of Brainworks Foundry, Inc., a U.S. based developer of AI-enhanced healthcare technologies and services. Prior to Brainworks, Dr. Alvelda was a Program Manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] Biological Technologies Office where he developed and ran national scale R&D programs and technologies at the intersection of engineering and biology.

Prior to DARPA, Dr. Alvelda was the founding CEO of MobiTV, which launched the world’s first live television service over mobile networks, for which he was awarded an Emmy by the Academy of Motion Pictures, selected by Fast Company as the US’s 15th most influential high-tech entrepreneur, and has received numerous other industry awards for innovation and market leadership. He is a regular invited speaker at science, technology, and education industry events, including the World Economic Forum where he was chosen as a “Technology Pioneer” in 2007.

Prior to MobiTV, Dr. Alvelda founded The MicroDisplay Corporation, a manufacturer of miniature displays for low cost HDTVs and VR headsets. Prior to MicroDisplay, Dr. Alvelda was a developer of spacecraft hardware and new neural computing architectures at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory where he designed and built sensors that flew on the Space Shuttle as well as the Galileo and Magellan interplanetary spacecraft. Dr. Alvelda holds over 30 patents and patents-pending on a wide range of technologies, a technical Emmy Award, a Bachelor’s degree in Physics from Cornell University, and Masters and PhD degrees in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering from MIT.

By this expert

Featuring this expert

INET article cited in NTV on how to handle the pandemic this winter

News Dec 7, 2020

“A look around the world shows that so far no country has managed to effectively protect its risk groups when the number of infections is high - Sweden at the beginning of the pandemic or Switzerland in the second wave also had to pay for their special routes with many deaths. And if such a strategy fails, you have wasted valuable time and may find yourself confronted with an infection that is completely out of control. This would mean a collapse of the health system with all the ensuing consequences. This also includes immense damage to the economy. This is also confirmed by a study by the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Those who reacted belatedly or wavered between strategies not only had very high casualties, but were also the most damaging to their economies, it said. The authors cite Great Britain as a negative example.” — Klaus Wedekind

INET study featured in Queensland

News Dec 7, 2020

“The “go-hard/go-early and no regrets” approach of the Australian states has been vindicated by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organisation established in the wake of the 2009 global financial crash.” …. “We must be ready to accept renewed restrictions, targeted shutdowns and border closures. As the INET report clearly demonstrates, the failure to act is much more costly than any temporary measures, such as those used in South Australia last month.” — Dennis Atkins

The FT cites INET article on what can be learned from the pandemic

News Nov 25, 2020

“Actual experience, as opposed to cost-benefit analyses of theoretical alternatives, further strengthens the case for suppressing the disease fully, where feasible. A recent paper from the Institute for New Economic Thinking, To Save the Economy, Save the People First, suggests why. A chart (reproduced here) shows that countries have followed two strategies: suppression, or trading off deaths against the economy. By and large, the former group has done better in both respects. Meanwhile, countries that have sacrificed lives have tended to end up with high mortality and economic costs.” — Martin Wolf, The Financial Times

El Economista cites INET research on the cost of the pandemic

News Nov 25, 2020

“To save the economy, you have to save people first, is the title of a paper by Alvelda, Ferguson and Mallery of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. This work groups countries into three categories, according to the response to the covid: those that gave priority to maintaining economic life; those who focused on taking care of health first and those who wanted to be placed in the middle, but did not do either one well. The best economic results correspond to those who prioritized health. They are countries that are in Asia and Oceania, mainly. The worst are in the other two groups. Those who did not define one or the other, got the worst of both worlds: many deaths and great economic damage. What can be done? Alvelda, Ferguson, and Mallery recommend targeted subsidies by regions and sectors hardest hit; guarantee income for workers in non-essential activities and subsidize health safety measures for all those who cannot stop. This means, among other things, public money to make public transport and some massive workplaces more sanitary. Subsidize supervision / surveillance measures in spaces where many people go: shopping centers and places of religious worship, for example.” — Luis Miguel Gonzalez, El Economista (translated from Spanish)