A preliminary estimate, and a request for better ones.
Summary
I believe the standard literature estimates for the number of DALYs attributable to a case of stunting are too low, largely because they don’t account for the long term effects. This means that childhood nutritional interventions that reduce the prevalence of stunting may be substantially more cost-effective than previously believed.
Epistemic status
Exploratory and back-o...
Note: This post was crossposted from Planned Obsolescence by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post.
Subtitle: It’s a major warning shot, and might be the last one we get
All opinions are my personal view, and don’t represent my employer or fellow investigators.
This week, METR and Redwood Research published...
Overview
This post summarizes a new preprint on alternative proteins from the Humane and Sustainable Food Lab: New alternatives, same orders. We investigated 19...
Not sure if this is the best forum for feedback, so please direct me elsewhere and happy to delete my comment if not.
A few suggestions on the explanation of EV. While the examples are clear, I found the definition of expected value confusing.
It is written as "expected value = likelihood of option x value of option", and "The expected value is the probability multiplied by the value of each outcome".
I read this as: E[X]=xP(x), which doesn't capture the need to sum across outcomes.
Pitched at the same level of technicality, I think a clearer definition is: "The expected value of an uncertain decision is the sum across all outcomes of the value of each outcome multiplied by its probability."
Or some other wording that captures that this is a weighted average. This properly implies the necessary summation across outcomes: E[X]=∑xP(x).
It might also be worth:
Hi John, your revised version of definition helps me greatly.