Huh, my impression is the exact opposite: GiveWell leaves out a number of reasons that would lower their estimated cost-per-life-saved (i.e. the estimate tries to err high right now, i.e. they adjusted for reasons that it would otherwise be too low). For instance, they only count the effect of reduced child mortality, not reduced morbidity. And by counting non-AMF costs towards the cost-per-life-saved, they assume that AMF’s partners would otherwise spend the money on something just as effective.
If you took all these into account, it would lower the denominator in the calculation in the grandparent, which would result in 68k saving more than 20 lives.
Oh, right, I don’t think I used the money from other partners in my calcs in the way you say givewell does—so if I was inadvertantly increasing the cost of a net that would be a mistake—double discounting.
Then, with the morbidity, its really a tiny effect in terms of QALYs so I’m not to concerned about that—even the income shock is relatively small in most places.
Huh, my impression is the exact opposite: GiveWell leaves out a number of reasons that would lower their estimated cost-per-life-saved (i.e. the estimate tries to err high right now, i.e. they adjusted for reasons that it would otherwise be too low). For instance, they only count the effect of reduced child mortality, not reduced morbidity. And by counting non-AMF costs towards the cost-per-life-saved, they assume that AMF’s partners would otherwise spend the money on something just as effective.
If you took all these into account, it would lower the denominator in the calculation in the grandparent, which would result in 68k saving more than 20 lives.
Oh, right, I don’t think I used the money from other partners in my calcs in the way you say givewell does—so if I was inadvertantly increasing the cost of a net that would be a mistake—double discounting.
Then, with the morbidity, its really a tiny effect in terms of QALYs so I’m not to concerned about that—even the income shock is relatively small in most places.
Oh, I was trying to say that they seem overly pessimistic, same as you.
Oh, ok. That would make 68k buy more than 20 lives saved, though, not less as tomstocker alleges.