Most of these CIs start at zero and they canât go below zero so shouldnât we consider these on a log scale? In which case the scale goes back to negative infinity and âalmost everywhere withinâ is meaningless.
I donât know of any reasonable justification for caring about expected log-welfare rather than expected welfare. For a welfare range estimate, the thing that matters is the expected value.
For a welfare range estimate, the thing that matters is the expected value.
Right. I have been using Rethink Prioritiesâ (RPâs) median welfare ranges, but I care about expected welfare. RP thinks their median welfare ranges are a better proxy for the actual means than the means of the distributions they got, and I tend to agree.
I think itâs very relevant that animal welfare interventions look better than global health interventions almost everywhere within the RP intervals.
I think this point is stronger than inferred from the graph because the 90 % confidence interval of the median is narrower than the range from the 5th to the 95th percentile.
Most of these CIs start at zero and they canât go below zero so shouldnât we consider these on a log scale? In which case the scale goes back to negative infinity and âalmost everywhere withinâ is meaningless.
I donât know of any reasonable justification for caring about expected log-welfare rather than expected welfare. For a welfare range estimate, the thing that matters is the expected value.
Agreed, Michael!
Right. I have been using Rethink Prioritiesâ (RPâs) median welfare ranges, but I care about expected welfare. RP thinks their median welfare ranges are a better proxy for the actual means than the means of the distributions they got, and I tend to agree.
I think this point is stronger than inferred from the graph because the 90 % confidence interval of the median is narrower than the range from the 5th to the 95th percentile.