To narrow down the confidence interval we used research by Founders Pledge on i.e. corporate outreach campaigns. They estimated that every cage-free campaign in the US that THL runs speeds up the commitment by 1-1.5 years on average. Using the data from Egg Track we estimated that the average percentage of eggs affected in 2017-18 is ~0.015%. Therefore, the total percentage of eggs affected by THL by speeding up every cage-free campaign is ~0.015% to ~0.023%. According to ChickenWatch, there were 76 commitments taken in 2017 and 35 in 2018, giving us 111 in total. Therefore, the total effect of THL between 2017-18 is ~1.71% to ~2.56%, which we are going to use as a lower band of the confidence interval, giving us ~2.1- ~10% of the counterfactual impact of corporate campaigns.
Could you clarify how I should interpret the ~0.015% to ~0.023% and the ~1.71% to ~2.56% differently? The wording seems very similar.
Also, why use 2.1% (the mean?) as the lower band, and not, say 1.71% or something closer to it to include the uncertainty in this estimate? Is this just for simplicity? I suppose it doesn’t really matter that much, either way, though, since the difference is small.
Could you clarify how I should interpret the ~0.015% to ~0.023% and the ~1.71% to ~2.56% differently? The wording seems very similar.
Also, why use 2.1% (the mean?) as the lower band, and not, say 1.71% or something closer to it to include the uncertainty in this estimate? Is this just for simplicity? I suppose it doesn’t really matter that much, either way, though, since the difference is small.