I’m planning to donate ~5-10% of my giving this year to Vida Plena, and I thought it might be worthwhile to explain why ahead of the Donation Election.
I find it unlikely that directly paying the costs of g-IPT is sufficiently cost-effective given other potential uses of EA-sourced funds. So for me, the critical question for me is whether Vida Plena can attract sufficient government and/or non-EA private interest to cover most costs in time (probably with an assist from a reduction in costs due to economies of scale).
I’m encouraged by the progress in working with government entities, and see the engagement from Columbia and the WHO as a loose proxy for potential attractiveness to non-EA private donors. Moreover, I think it’s plausible that Vida Plena is at a “pivotal moment” as the post says, and that timing suggests that giving this year could be more impactful then most years.
So this is my less-certain but higher-potential-upside global health donation for the year.
Thank you so much for both the donation and for publicly sharing your reasoning. I really appreciate you taking the extra step to make this visible; that kind of transparency is genuinely valuable to the community and to us.
I share your core framing almost exactly. The long-run case here really does hinge on whether government and large institutional funding materializes, and that is a real bet with meaningful risk. Support from the Columbia team and the WHO is encouraging but far from a guarantee, and I want to be very open about that uncertainty. At the same time, even if the big bet on government funding doesn’t work out, the harm is limited and mostly turns into learning. But if it does work, the upside could be very large. If it succeeds, it unlocks a scale that EA funding alone could never sustain.
I also strongly agree with your point about timing. Marginal funding this year is especially leveraged toward evidence, partnerships, and proof of viability. That makes support at this moment unusually impactful relative to most years.
Thank you again for your support and for articulating this so clearly. It truly means a lot at this stage.
I’m planning to donate ~5-10% of my giving this year to Vida Plena, and I thought it might be worthwhile to explain why ahead of the Donation Election.
I find it unlikely that directly paying the costs of g-IPT is sufficiently cost-effective given other potential uses of EA-sourced funds. So for me, the critical question for me is whether Vida Plena can attract sufficient government and/or non-EA private interest to cover most costs in time (probably with an assist from a reduction in costs due to economies of scale).
I’m encouraged by the progress in working with government entities, and see the engagement from Columbia and the WHO as a loose proxy for potential attractiveness to non-EA private donors. Moreover, I think it’s plausible that Vida Plena is at a “pivotal moment” as the post says, and that timing suggests that giving this year could be more impactful then most years.
So this is my less-certain but higher-potential-upside global health donation for the year.
HI Jason,
Thank you so much for both the donation and for publicly sharing your reasoning. I really appreciate you taking the extra step to make this visible; that kind of transparency is genuinely valuable to the community and to us.
I share your core framing almost exactly. The long-run case here really does hinge on whether government and large institutional funding materializes, and that is a real bet with meaningful risk. Support from the Columbia team and the WHO is encouraging but far from a guarantee, and I want to be very open about that uncertainty. At the same time, even if the big bet on government funding doesn’t work out, the harm is limited and mostly turns into learning. But if it does work, the upside could be very large. If it succeeds, it unlocks a scale that EA funding alone could never sustain.
I also strongly agree with your point about timing. Marginal funding this year is especially leveraged toward evidence, partnerships, and proof of viability. That makes support at this moment unusually impactful relative to most years.
Thank you again for your support and for articulating this so clearly. It truly means a lot at this stage.