I’m conservative when estimating effects. Their spreadsheets let you play around with things like this. There are good reasons to be conservative. Taking two of the main considerations to discount the cost effectiveness estimate outside from givewell’s models:
1). using an outside view, we can see that the cost effectiveness estimates of these charities have decreased over time as greater scrutiny has been brought to bear—if you project going forwards, then we’d expect that estimate to come down further. This is backed up things like insecticide resistance not being in the model.
2). I don’t think we should attribute all of the gain in AMF’s activities to money given—I know that there is a causal argument—but I’d like to give some credit to Rob Mathers, partner funders etc. etc. so am unwilling to say I’ve saved a life by giving $x—its more that I’ve been part of a team that’s done so (so I discount against other activities with different numbers of actions by different people that mean it wouldn’t have happened)
3). Even thinking about causal level changes—AMF might well have little room for funding depending on how the next net distribution agreements go.
Have a play around with these and see for yourself how fragile the estimates are on a number of assumptions. Its all related to how confident you are in the data and the assumptions, and how reliable you want to be when you say you can save a life for $x.
Holden has repeatedly said that these kind of cost effectiveness estimates aren’t enough to hang your hat on.
I’m conservative when estimating effects. Their spreadsheets let you play around with things like this. There are good reasons to be conservative. Taking two of the main considerations to discount the cost effectiveness estimate outside from givewell’s models: 1). using an outside view, we can see that the cost effectiveness estimates of these charities have decreased over time as greater scrutiny has been brought to bear—if you project going forwards, then we’d expect that estimate to come down further. This is backed up things like insecticide resistance not being in the model. 2). I don’t think we should attribute all of the gain in AMF’s activities to money given—I know that there is a causal argument—but I’d like to give some credit to Rob Mathers, partner funders etc. etc. so am unwilling to say I’ve saved a life by giving $x—its more that I’ve been part of a team that’s done so (so I discount against other activities with different numbers of actions by different people that mean it wouldn’t have happened) 3). Even thinking about causal level changes—AMF might well have little room for funding depending on how the next net distribution agreements go.
Have a play around with these and see for yourself how fragile the estimates are on a number of assumptions. Its all related to how confident you are in the data and the assumptions, and how reliable you want to be when you say you can save a life for $x.
Holden has repeatedly said that these kind of cost effectiveness estimates aren’t enough to hang your hat on.