Could you explain what the bars for AMF mean in Figure 2? I looked at page 80 and found the following values for “Overall cost-effectiveness in WELLBYs per $1,000 (xGD)”
AMF 56.16 (6.85x) under deprivationism
AMF 29.34 (3.58x) under TRIA
AMF 6.69 (0.82x) under epicureanism
I considered that the bars could reflect uncertainty about the neutral point from 0-5, but the bars look even wider than the figure on page 83 would suggest.
The bars for AMF in Figure 2 should represent the range of cost-effectiveness estimates that come from inputting different neutral points, and for TRIA the age of connectedness.
This differs from the values given in Table 25 on page 80 because, as we note below that table, the values there are based on assuming a neutral point of 2 and an TRIA age of connectedness of 15.
The bar also differs for the range given in Figure 13 on page 83 because the lowest TRIA value has an age of connectivity of 5 years, where in Figure 2 (here) we allow it to go as low as 2 years I believe[1].
I see that the footnote explaining this is broken, I’ll fix that.
When I plug (Deprivationism, neutral point =0; TRIA, neutral point =0, age of connectedness = 2) into our calculator it spits out a cost-effectiveness of 91 WELLBYs per $1,000 for deprivationism and 78 for TRIA (age of connectivity = 2) -- this appears to match the upper end of the bar.
Thanks—that helps. “The lines for AMF (the Against Malaria Foundation) are different from the others” was really confusing without the footnote call following it; it makes a lot more sense now after the fix!
Could you explain what the bars for AMF mean in Figure 2? I looked at page 80 and found the following values for “Overall cost-effectiveness in WELLBYs per $1,000 (xGD)”
AMF 56.16 (6.85x) under deprivationism
AMF 29.34 (3.58x) under TRIA
AMF 6.69 (0.82x) under epicureanism
I considered that the bars could reflect uncertainty about the neutral point from 0-5, but the bars look even wider than the figure on page 83 would suggest.
Hi Jason,
The bars for AMF in Figure 2 should represent the range of cost-effectiveness estimates that come from inputting different neutral points, and for TRIA the age of connectedness.
This differs from the values given in Table 25 on page 80 because, as we note below that table, the values there are based on assuming a neutral point of 2 and an TRIA age of connectedness of 15.
The bar also differs for the range given in Figure 13 on page 83 because the lowest TRIA value has an age of connectivity of 5 years, where in Figure 2 (here) we allow it to go as low as 2 years I believe[1].
I see that the footnote explaining this is broken, I’ll fix that.
When I plug (Deprivationism, neutral point =0; TRIA, neutral point =0, age of connectedness = 2) into our calculator it spits out a cost-effectiveness of 91 WELLBYs per $1,000 for deprivationism and 78 for TRIA (age of connectivity = 2) -- this appears to match the upper end of the bar.
Thanks—that helps. “The lines for AMF (the Against Malaria Foundation) are different from the others” was really confusing without the footnote call following it; it makes a lot more sense now after the fix!