You’re reporting statistics (mean, quantiles) of the ratio of cost-effectiveness estimates, and not the ratio of the mean cost-effectiveness estimates, right?
Yes, right.
I think the ratio of the means is more informative, since we normally compare expected values per $ spent.
That makes sense. I have updated the post such that I now analyse the ratio between the statistics of the cost-effectiveness distributions instead of the statistics of the ratio between the cost-effectiveness distributions.
Both the ratio between the mean cost-effectiveness of CCCW and MIF, and the mean ratio between the cost-effectiveness of CCCW and MIF are 12 k, so there were no changes in the conclusions.
Assuming QALYs and cQALYs reflect similar circumstances and are normalized similarly (Inthink that’sthe intention), the most informative figures for me would just be the ratio of means assuming moral weight is 1, times a placeholder discount factor for moral weight.
I think I had better use a concrete best guess for the expected moral weight, such that the expected conclusions are clearer. That being said, I agree that is quite informative, so I have added the following to the Discussion:
This ratio [between the mean cost-effectiveness of CCCW and MIF] is equal to the product between 4.78 k and the mean moral weight of chickens relative to humans if these are moral patients, which would have to be 2*10^-4 (= 1/(4.78 k)) for the ratio to be 1.
For this analysis, I have not accounted for the “meat eater problem effects” I analysed here.
Thanks for the feedback!
Yes, right.
That makes sense. I have updated the post such that I now analyse the ratio between the statistics of the cost-effectiveness distributions instead of the statistics of the ratio between the cost-effectiveness distributions.
Both the ratio between the mean cost-effectiveness of CCCW and MIF, and the mean ratio between the cost-effectiveness of CCCW and MIF are 12 k, so there were no changes in the conclusions.
I think I had better use a concrete best guess for the expected moral weight, such that the expected conclusions are clearer. That being said, I agree that is quite informative, so I have added the following to the Discussion:
For this analysis, I have not accounted for the “meat eater problem effects” I analysed here.