I must admit I am confused. I don’t know why you are making recommendations for COVID-19 donations if you’d also prioritize the neglected needs of the developing world? I am skeptical that anything in Categories 1 and 2 are cost-competitive with existing EA work—and at the minimum this cost-effectiveness is still far from being established.
And in any case, you still could use GiveDirectly to help with cash transfers to the African population dealing with COVID-19.
What kind of criteria were you using to generate these recommendations?
~
GiveDirectly counters that the government response will likely not be enough. That may well be correct, but it will probably be enough to ensure that it doesn’t damage Trump’s re-election chances.
I’m also confused here.
1.) If the response is likely not enough, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to help?
2.) I also very much doubt there won’t be an affect on Trump’s re-election chances, but I don’t think it is relevant.
“I must admit I am confused. I don’t know why you are making recommendations for COVID-19 donations if you’d also prioritize the neglected needs of the developing world? ”
This is to answer the question of where to donate if the donors *specifically* wants to donate to something COVID-19-relevant.
“I am skeptical that anything in Categories 1 and 2 are cost-competitive with existing EA work—and at the minimum this cost-effectiveness is still far from being established. ”
Lots of the organisations in categories 1 and 2 would be considered to actually *be* existing EA work. The first-mentioned organisation (Johns Hopkins CHS) is recommended by Founders Pledge.
″ What kind of criteria were you using to generate these recommendations? ”
The criteria are: where the organisation falls into a category which is more positively viewed *and* which already has some analysis to support it.
“1.) If the response is likely not enough, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to help? ”
Yes, it would be worthwhile to help. The question isn’t whether it would achieve something and not nothing. The contention is that the higher rated donation opportunities would outperform.
“2.) I also very much doubt there won’t be an affect on Trump’s re-election chances, but I don’t think it is relevant. ”
The reason why I consider it relevant is that it gives the Trump administration a stronger incentive to help those affected by the COVID-19 crisis. This means that the cause of helping those in the US is unlikely to be neglected, and substantially less neglected than supporting those in sub-Saharan Africa
GiveDirectly has provided more information about their response. It looks like they’ll expand beyond the US. If it does, how would that change your categorization? It’d probably depend on the country (e.g. sub-saharan Africa vs. Italy vs. China).
We also plan to respond internationally, and are finalizing those details. Will share shortly.
I must admit I am confused. I don’t know why you are making recommendations for COVID-19 donations if you’d also prioritize the neglected needs of the developing world? I am skeptical that anything in Categories 1 and 2 are cost-competitive with existing EA work—and at the minimum this cost-effectiveness is still far from being established.
And in any case, you still could use GiveDirectly to help with cash transfers to the African population dealing with COVID-19.
What kind of criteria were you using to generate these recommendations?
~
I’m also confused here.
1.) If the response is likely not enough, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to help?
2.) I also very much doubt there won’t be an affect on Trump’s re-election chances, but I don’t think it is relevant.
“I must admit I am confused. I don’t know why you are making recommendations for COVID-19 donations if you’d also prioritize the neglected needs of the developing world? ”
This is to answer the question of where to donate if the donors *specifically* wants to donate to something COVID-19-relevant.
“I am skeptical that anything in Categories 1 and 2 are cost-competitive with existing EA work—and at the minimum this cost-effectiveness is still far from being established. ”
Lots of the organisations in categories 1 and 2 would be considered to actually *be* existing EA work. The first-mentioned organisation (Johns Hopkins CHS) is recommended by Founders Pledge.
″ What kind of criteria were you using to generate these recommendations? ”
The criteria are: where the organisation falls into a category which is more positively viewed *and* which already has some analysis to support it.
“1.) If the response is likely not enough, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to help? ”
Yes, it would be worthwhile to help. The question isn’t whether it would achieve something and not nothing. The contention is that the higher rated donation opportunities would outperform.
“2.) I also very much doubt there won’t be an affect on Trump’s re-election chances, but I don’t think it is relevant. ”
The reason why I consider it relevant is that it gives the Trump administration a stronger incentive to help those affected by the COVID-19 crisis. This means that the cause of helping those in the US is unlikely to be neglected, and substantially less neglected than supporting those in sub-Saharan Africa
On what basis do you make that contention?
GiveDirectly has provided more information about their response. It looks like they’ll expand beyond the US. If it does, how would that change your categorization? It’d probably depend on the country (e.g. sub-saharan Africa vs. Italy vs. China).