Amazing response and thanks so much for looking more closely at the numbers, I was hoping someone would!. Absolutely love that you made your own spreadsheet, great to get a sanity check at least. To respond individually to your fantastic points.
I hadn’t considered the 7.5k bar I agree that may make more sense. I’m not sure though that if this was going to be done at any scale, “high uncertainties” should lead to a fuzzier bar—I struggle to see how that works practically. I’m not sure how any cost-effectiveness seeking intervention works without a fairly solid theoretical cut-off? a As a side note as well, as cost-effective interventions go, helping individuals would perhaps be at the lower end of uncertainty
This is a good point about the 35% of non life-saving benefits for AMF. Obviously here there are also many non life-saving events with similar pathways to AMF, but I’m not sure how that compares
Thanks for this comment on excessive conservatism, I think I agree nice one!
Yes how to include other non-donation costs is a real head scratcher and I struggle to get my head around.. For burns and Heart surgery, much of the work the hospitals are doing is indeed life saving—more so for the heart surgery than the burns. Even the non-life saving burns work has potentially huge impacts on the patients’ lives.
This is an excellent point, I think I was probably being overly optimistic here and would downgrade these in future.
Thanks so much again for your work as well. As much as thinking about helping individual people might speak to us and hit us emotionally, my guess would be that your work developing software at Giving What We Can may well be a more cost-effective way of helping people.
Amazing response and thanks so much for looking more closely at the numbers, I was hoping someone would!. Absolutely love that you made your own spreadsheet, great to get a sanity check at least. To respond individually to your fantastic points.
I hadn’t considered the 7.5k bar I agree that may make more sense. I’m not sure though that if this was going to be done at any scale, “high uncertainties” should lead to a fuzzier bar—I struggle to see how that works practically. I’m not sure how any cost-effectiveness seeking intervention works without a fairly solid theoretical cut-off? a As a side note as well, as cost-effective interventions go, helping individuals would perhaps be at the lower end of uncertainty
This is a good point about the 35% of non life-saving benefits for AMF. Obviously here there are also many non life-saving events with similar pathways to AMF, but I’m not sure how that compares
Thanks for this comment on excessive conservatism, I think I agree nice one!
Yes how to include other non-donation costs is a real head scratcher and I struggle to get my head around.. For burns and Heart surgery, much of the work the hospitals are doing is indeed life saving—more so for the heart surgery than the burns. Even the non-life saving burns work has potentially huge impacts on the patients’ lives.
This is an excellent point, I think I was probably being overly optimistic here and would downgrade these in future.
Thanks so much again for your work as well. As much as thinking about helping individual people might speak to us and hit us emotionally, my guess would be that your work developing software at Giving What We Can may well be a more cost-effective way of helping people.