This is a top-level comment compiling scattered notes on quantifying benefits / costs and related things, for my own benefit. Future notes will be comments under this one.
The purpose of this compilation is to essentially fact-post / perpetual-draft my way towards a more nuts-and-bolts understanding of the “what are the most effective interventions?” question, which is a different starting point than the usual “what are the most cost-effective?” one, a perspective shift primarily spurred by Justin Sandefur’s case study on PEPFAR and a desire to better internalise what “big EA” might look like (as opposed to taking a scarcity mindset as given), albeit in a lazy undirected way: these notes are from references I encounter in the course of doing other work.
In their 2024 results report, the Global Fund partnership claims to have saved 65 million lives from dying of AIDS, TB and malaria alone, in addition to other benefits like morbidity reductions from those diseases, lower infant and maternal mortality and fewer deaths from acute trauma and other conditions.
The 65M lives saved figure caught my eye, since they have “only” disbursed $63 billion so far between 2002 and end of 2023, for an implied cost-effectiveness of ~$1,000 per life saved, about 5x the GiveWell bar. On the one hand, I doubt their assessment is as rigorous as GiveWell’s; on the other hand, even a crude 90% discount (far more than any of the top charities are subject to, AFAICT on a quick skim) still yields $10k per life saved, surprisingly close to the GW bar despite (1) disbursing billions per year (2) across such a wide range of programs.
This is a top-level comment compiling scattered notes on quantifying benefits / costs and related things, for my own benefit. Future notes will be comments under this one.
The purpose of this compilation is to essentially fact-post / perpetual-draft my way towards a more nuts-and-bolts understanding of the “what are the most effective interventions?” question, which is a different starting point than the usual “what are the most cost-effective?” one, a perspective shift primarily spurred by Justin Sandefur’s case study on PEPFAR and a desire to better internalise what “big EA” might look like (as opposed to taking a scarcity mindset as given), albeit in a lazy undirected way: these notes are from references I encounter in the course of doing other work.
Past relevant notes:
Global immunisation efforts have saved ~154 million lives and led to 10.2 billion full health years gained over the last 50 years, 95% of them children under-5, 2/3rds infants
Tom Frieden likely helped saved tens of millions of lives by creating an international tobacco control initiative, and in his new role as CEO of Resolve to Save Lives is aiming to save 94 million more in 25 years
Notes on Richard Parncutt’s heuristic that someone in the next ~century is prematurely killed for every 1,000 tons of carbon humanity burns
Notes on Sudarshan & Frank’s paper on vultures as a keystone species: their accidental eradication in India led to more additional deaths each year (~100k) than HIV/AIDS, malaria, or alcohol use disorders
Justin Sandefur’s point that counterfactuals can be tricky to get right, with PEPFAR as case study, and how (sometimes) budget is not a real constraint even for multibillion-dollar initiatives
Trying out RP’s then-new cross-cause cost-effectiveness model for myself
Notes on Max Dalton’s 2014 writeup Estimating the cost-effectiveness of research into neglected diseases
How GiveWell calculates AMF’s cost-effectiveness, step by step
In their 2024 results report, the Global Fund partnership claims to have saved 65 million lives from dying of AIDS, TB and malaria alone, in addition to other benefits like morbidity reductions from those diseases, lower infant and maternal mortality and fewer deaths from acute trauma and other conditions.
The 65M lives saved figure caught my eye, since they have “only” disbursed $63 billion so far between 2002 and end of 2023, for an implied cost-effectiveness of ~$1,000 per life saved, about 5x the GiveWell bar. On the one hand, I doubt their assessment is as rigorous as GiveWell’s; on the other hand, even a crude 90% discount (far more than any of the top charities are subject to, AFAICT on a quick skim) still yields $10k per life saved, surprisingly close to the GW bar despite (1) disbursing billions per year (2) across such a wide range of programs.