A DALY improvement of 0.1 would mean prefering the experience of 9 days without a sunburn over 10 days with a sunburn seems… ¿reasonable? But also something confuses me here.
Initially I thought this was unreasonably high, since e.g. lower back pain has a disability weight of ~0.035. But if we try an estimate based on GiveWell valuing 37 DALY as much as 116 consumption doublings, preventing the loss of 0.1 DALYs would be equivalent to a ~24% increase in consumption for 1 year. Daily, it would mean ~$20 for a person making $30k/​year. This seems surprisingly reasonable for sunburn, given that I don’t think these numbers are meant to be used this way.
I wonder if this equivalence of ~24% income per 0.1 disability weight is totally off (as many of these things are clearly non-linear), or can be used for similar estimates.
Initially I thought this was unreasonably high, since e.g. lower back pain has a disability weight of ~0.035. But if we try an estimate based on GiveWell valuing 37 DALY as much as 116 consumption doublings, preventing the loss of 0.1 DALYs would be equivalent to a ~24% increase in consumption for 1 year. Daily, it would mean ~$20 for a person making $30k/​year. This seems surprisingly reasonable for sunburn, given that I don’t think these numbers are meant to be used this way.
I wonder if this equivalence of ~24% income per 0.1 disability weight is totally off (as many of these things are clearly non-linear), or can be used for similar estimates.