Artwork

Contenu fourni par EA Forum Team. Tout le contenu du podcast, y compris les épisodes, les graphiques et les descriptions de podcast, est téléchargé et fourni directement par EA Forum Team ou son partenaire de plateforme de podcast. Si vous pensez que quelqu'un utilise votre œuvre protégée sans votre autorisation, vous pouvez suivre le processus décrit ici https://fr.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Application Podcast
Mettez-vous hors ligne avec l'application Player FM !

“Are our Top Charities saving the same lives each year?” by GiveWell

51:14
 
Partager
 

Manage episode 425158689 series 3281452
Contenu fourni par EA Forum Team. Tout le contenu du podcast, y compris les épisodes, les graphiques et les descriptions de podcast, est téléchargé et fourni directement par EA Forum Team ou son partenaire de plateforme de podcast. Si vous pensez que quelqu'un utilise votre œuvre protégée sans votre autorisation, vous pouvez suivre le processus décrit ici https://fr.player.fm/legal.
This is a link post.

Author: Adam Salisbury, Senior Research Associate

In a nutshell

We’ve had a longstanding concern that some of our top charity programs, including insecticide-treated nets, seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC), and vitamin A supplementation (VAS), may have less impact than we've estimated due to “repetitive saving.” These programs provide health interventions to the same children under 5 years old annually or every 3 years. Our cost-effectiveness models currently assume that different lives are saved each year from these interventions. We think it's possible the programs are actually saving the same, high-risk children over and over. In a worst-case scenario, this could mean the programs are saving 80% fewer cumulative lives than we thought.

Based on a shallow review of empirical evidence and talking to experts, our best guess is that we're only overstating the total lives saved by these programs by around 10%, because:

  • Under-5 deaths [...]

---

Outline:

(00:12) In a nutshell

(02:46) What's the issue?

(06:44) What did we find?

(11:53) How could we be wrong?

(14:31) What's the issue?

(17:35) Why we don’t think this is a big concern

(18:22) Driver 1: Skewness of mortality risk

(20:42) Driver 2: Persistence of the at-risk population

(25:12) Modeling these drivers

(34:08) Sensitivity checks

(35:35) Outside the model checks

(37:34) How could we be wrong?

(40:28) Are we returning children to normal life expectancy?

(42:34) Driver 1: Skewness of mortality risk across the life cycle

(43:43) Driver 2: Persistence of the at-risk population

(48:13) Moral difficulties raised by the life expectancy question

---

First published:
June 18th, 2024

Source:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jNAFTJWpKK89pisaQ/are-our-top-charities-saving-the-same-lives-each-year

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  continue reading

256 episodes

Artwork
iconPartager
 
Manage episode 425158689 series 3281452
Contenu fourni par EA Forum Team. Tout le contenu du podcast, y compris les épisodes, les graphiques et les descriptions de podcast, est téléchargé et fourni directement par EA Forum Team ou son partenaire de plateforme de podcast. Si vous pensez que quelqu'un utilise votre œuvre protégée sans votre autorisation, vous pouvez suivre le processus décrit ici https://fr.player.fm/legal.
This is a link post.

Author: Adam Salisbury, Senior Research Associate

In a nutshell

We’ve had a longstanding concern that some of our top charity programs, including insecticide-treated nets, seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC), and vitamin A supplementation (VAS), may have less impact than we've estimated due to “repetitive saving.” These programs provide health interventions to the same children under 5 years old annually or every 3 years. Our cost-effectiveness models currently assume that different lives are saved each year from these interventions. We think it's possible the programs are actually saving the same, high-risk children over and over. In a worst-case scenario, this could mean the programs are saving 80% fewer cumulative lives than we thought.

Based on a shallow review of empirical evidence and talking to experts, our best guess is that we're only overstating the total lives saved by these programs by around 10%, because:

  • Under-5 deaths [...]

---

Outline:

(00:12) In a nutshell

(02:46) What's the issue?

(06:44) What did we find?

(11:53) How could we be wrong?

(14:31) What's the issue?

(17:35) Why we don’t think this is a big concern

(18:22) Driver 1: Skewness of mortality risk

(20:42) Driver 2: Persistence of the at-risk population

(25:12) Modeling these drivers

(34:08) Sensitivity checks

(35:35) Outside the model checks

(37:34) How could we be wrong?

(40:28) Are we returning children to normal life expectancy?

(42:34) Driver 1: Skewness of mortality risk across the life cycle

(43:43) Driver 2: Persistence of the at-risk population

(48:13) Moral difficulties raised by the life expectancy question

---

First published:
June 18th, 2024

Source:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jNAFTJWpKK89pisaQ/are-our-top-charities-saving-the-same-lives-each-year

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  continue reading

256 episodes

Alla avsnitt

×
 
Loading …

Bienvenue sur Lecteur FM!

Lecteur FM recherche sur Internet des podcasts de haute qualité que vous pourrez apprécier dès maintenant. C'est la meilleure application de podcast et fonctionne sur Android, iPhone et le Web. Inscrivez-vous pour synchroniser les abonnements sur tous les appareils.

 

Guide de référence rapide