This sounds like an awesome project and I’m very excited for your plans! I’ve been interested for quite a while in things in the general category of cognitive/disease burden costs of pollution, and excited to see an EA project working on them!
Over the next two months, we will be testing the levels of lead in new paints on the market in Malawi and building relationships with stakeholders and decision-makers. Depending on findings and progress from this stage, we will either pilot our advocacy campaign in Malawi to introduce lead paint regulation, or pivot to another promising country.
Definitely don’t spend a lot of time on it, but I’m interested if you have thoughts on the probabilities of your next steps here? Specifically
What probability will you assign to having enough internal validity to know of next plans in 2 months?
What’s your probability of piloting your advocacy campaign in Malawi to introduce lead paint regulation (as opposed to another promising country)?
(Again, feel free to not answer) what probability will you put on being a Givewell Top or Standout charity by the end of 2025?
Hi Linch, Great question. Probability estimates about the future are always difficult—we can give you some loose indications of what we expect, though these should be taken with a grain of salt.
1. A two month timeline may be hard to estimate, as things can often run more slowly when starting in a new country. However, we can give more confident estimates on a three month timeline (which offers some buffer room).
We’d attach a reasonably high probability to having enough information to make these decisions within the next 3 months (~80%). Our decision-relevant data gaps at the moment are a) about the level of lead paint use in Malawi, and b) about the tractability of meeting with Malawian politicians. However, we have ways to test both of these things, and identify whether they should be a disqualifying factor, and have strong leads on the connections required to get this information.
2. Our probability of piloting in Malawi is also quite high, as the early indicators of burden and tractability seem quite strong. We’ve managed to find a 2017 study on the level of lead in paint in Malawi which indicates that this country would be highly promising to target. The study found that 56% of paint tested in Malawi had more than 90ppm, and 37.5% had more than 600ppm - this makes us think that it is quite likely that lead is a significant contributor to the overall burden of lead poisoning in Malawi. On the tractability side, making contacts within Malawi has also been much easier than expected. This makes us think that our probability of piloting in Malawi is better than even, around 60%.
3. Good question. This intervention has the potential to have very large-scale benefits, and very high cost-effectiveness, but I don’t think I could attach a reasonable probability estimate that I’d trust this far out.
In super simple terms, how does lobbying work for one of these countries? Is it as simple as getting the phone with a local politician and going from there?
This sounds like an awesome project and I’m very excited for your plans! I’ve been interested for quite a while in things in the general category of cognitive/disease burden costs of pollution, and excited to see an EA project working on them!
Definitely don’t spend a lot of time on it, but I’m interested if you have thoughts on the probabilities of your next steps here? Specifically
What probability will you assign to having enough internal validity to know of next plans in 2 months?
What’s your probability of piloting your advocacy campaign in Malawi to introduce lead paint regulation (as opposed to another promising country)?
(Again, feel free to not answer) what probability will you put on being a Givewell Top or Standout charity by the end of 2025?
Hi Linch, Great question. Probability estimates about the future are always difficult—we can give you some loose indications of what we expect, though these should be taken with a grain of salt.
1. A two month timeline may be hard to estimate, as things can often run more slowly when starting in a new country. However, we can give more confident estimates on a three month timeline (which offers some buffer room).
We’d attach a reasonably high probability to having enough information to make these decisions within the next 3 months (~80%). Our decision-relevant data gaps at the moment are a) about the level of lead paint use in Malawi, and b) about the tractability of meeting with Malawian politicians. However, we have ways to test both of these things, and identify whether they should be a disqualifying factor, and have strong leads on the connections required to get this information.
2. Our probability of piloting in Malawi is also quite high, as the early indicators of burden and tractability seem quite strong. We’ve managed to find a 2017 study on the level of lead in paint in Malawi which indicates that this country would be highly promising to target. The study found that 56% of paint tested in Malawi had more than 90ppm, and 37.5% had more than 600ppm - this makes us think that it is quite likely that lead is a significant contributor to the overall burden of lead poisoning in Malawi. On the tractability side, making contacts within Malawi has also been much easier than expected. This makes us think that our probability of piloting in Malawi is better than even, around 60%.
3. Good question. This intervention has the potential to have very large-scale benefits, and very high cost-effectiveness, but I don’t think I could attach a reasonable probability estimate that I’d trust this far out.
In super simple terms, how does lobbying work for one of these countries? Is it as simple as getting the phone with a local politician and going from there?