As a rough approximation, you can get the welfare an QALYs mutiplying the welfare in AQALYs by Rethink Priorities’ median welfare ranges
I might be misunderstanding something, but I’m not sure that’s right, even with your footnote. My understanding is that animal AQALYs per years and human QALYs per year both range from +1 at the top, to some species-specific negative value at the bottom. The same is true of the Rethink welfare units, but with a different scale. If so, shouldn’t the formula be as described below?
This would only be 100 % correct if the welfare per time of the practically maximally happy life as a fraction of the welfare range is constant across species.
In this case, “maximum welfare of a chicken-year”/(“maximum welfare of a chicken-year”—“minimum welfare of a chicken-year”) = “maximum welfare of a human-year”/(“maximum welfare of a human-year”—“minimum welfare of a human-year”) ⇔ “maximum welfare of a chicken-year” = (“maximum welfare of a chicken-year”—“minimum welfare of a chicken-year”)/(“maximum welfare of a human-year”—“minimum welfare of a human-year”)*”maximum welfare of a human-year”. Since “welfare range of chickens” = (“maximum welfare of a chicken-year”—“minimum welfare of a chicken-year”)/(“maximum welfare of a human-year”—“minimum welfare of a human-year”), “maximum welfare of a chicken-year” = “1 AQALY in chickens”, and “maximum welfare of a human-year” = “1 QALY”, “1 AQALY in chickens” = “welfare range of chickens”*”1 QALY”. So, given the condition I mentioned in the footnote, one can get the welfare in QALYs mutiplying the welfare in AQALYs by the welfare range.
Thanks Vasco,
I might be misunderstanding something, but I’m not sure that’s right, even with your footnote. My understanding is that animal AQALYs per years and human QALYs per year both range from +1 at the top, to some species-specific negative value at the bottom. The same is true of the Rethink welfare units, but with a different scale. If so, shouldn’t the formula be as described below?
In this case, “maximum welfare of a chicken-year”/(“maximum welfare of a chicken-year”—“minimum welfare of a chicken-year”) = “maximum welfare of a human-year”/(“maximum welfare of a human-year”—“minimum welfare of a human-year”) ⇔ “maximum welfare of a chicken-year” = (“maximum welfare of a chicken-year”—“minimum welfare of a chicken-year”)/(“maximum welfare of a human-year”—“minimum welfare of a human-year”)*”maximum welfare of a human-year”. Since “welfare range of chickens” = (“maximum welfare of a chicken-year”—“minimum welfare of a chicken-year”)/(“maximum welfare of a human-year”—“minimum welfare of a human-year”), “maximum welfare of a chicken-year” = “1 AQALY in chickens”, and “maximum welfare of a human-year” = “1 QALY”, “1 AQALY in chickens” = “welfare range of chickens”*”1 QALY”. So, given the condition I mentioned in the footnote, one can get the welfare in QALYs mutiplying the welfare in AQALYs by the welfare range.
Got it, thanks. For those following along at home, I misread your footnote and the graphs I made do not reflect the condition in the footnote.
If it makes things easier, you can copy the Google Slides source to tweak the illustration https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1LuSpONztS9Tl0OSn-YeyWJG7B6UIYtff49p1WREPPgA/edit#slide=id.p