EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
marialma0
0
0

I think, in this type of analysis, for an infectious disease, it's really important to look at potential for spread as well.

Malaria is region-constricted (only places with the right mosquitoes), whereas HIV is not. Therefore, there's a natural cap at the amount of malaria we can have if malaria control ceased to exist, whereas HIV's 'natural cap' is potentially "all susceptible humans".

If you include "all future infections" into the analysis, how much suffering due to HIV can be avoided due to current efforts to control HIV? I mean, you can sort of see this in a natural experiment created by South Africa's HIV denialism - 18.5% of the population there is infected, compared to 6% of Kenya and 3% of Nigeria, despite both Kenya and Nigeria having lower GDP/capita than South Africa. There's an article on the costs of HIV denialism in SA here. Obviously, societal dynamics are different in SA than other places, but 3x the amount of HIV is a pretty significant number.

Anyway, the CBAs on interventions like promoting condom use, testing services, education campaigns, and such are (obviously) difficult to do, but that... really doesn't mean we shouldn't be funding them.

As for agony of HIV over malaria - are you sure? Does this include the 'psychic' cost of HIV (mental stress, stigma, constrained social mobility, shunning from society/friends/family) along with the physical cost?

Reply
See in context
by vipulnaik
3 min read 4

6

Global health & developmentHIV/AIDSMalaria
Frontpage

A few months ago, I posted to Facebook a puzzle about the difference in funding for AIDS and malaria. Here is the puzzle:

  1. DAH spending for AIDS is much more than malaria: Development assistance for health (DAH) numbers from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) show that development assistance spending on AIDS significantly exceeds spending on malaria. For instance, if you click on the link and switch to "Trends" and "Health focus" you'll see that AIDS DAH spending in 2016 was estimated as $9.5 billion whereas malaria DAH spending was estimated as $2.5 billion. Most of this difference comes from government spending (breakdown by source also at the link). In fact, total annual spending by the US government on HIV/AIDS is around $33 billion, more than the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, though most of it is domestic spending.
  2. Effective altruists and allied groups have focused much more on malaria than AIDS throughout their history: Malaria has been identified by GiveWell as a promising area since 2006, and the Against Malaria Foundation has been a GiveWell top-rated charity since 2011, excepting one year. Giving What We Can has also recommended the Against Malaria Foundation since before it became a GiveWell top charity, and it has also been the poster boy of effective altruism for fundraising groups like The Life You Can Save and Charity Science. In contrast, HIV/AIDS hasn't been a major focus, with GiveWell getting around to reviewing a HIV/AIDS-related intervention only in 2017.
  3. Crude estimates of the toll of the two diseases paints a picture of fairly comparable impact: Malaria affects five or more times as many people as AIDS. But on the other hand, once you get AIDS, you are stuck with it, whereas you can usually recover from malaria in a few weeks. On the third hand, the agony per unit time of having AIDS is lower than that of malaria. The annual death toll of AIDS is about double that of malaria (a million versus 400,000), though estimates for both have huge error bars.

Interestingly the Gates Foundation, which can be considered intermediate between a government donor and an "effective altruist", has an AIDS/malaria spending split in between the two: it spends roughly equally on the two; see breakdown of funds for grants in developing countries.

The tension between (1) and (2) is an interesting puzzle. It could be that:

  • DAH spenders are wrong about their focus on AIDS, and in an ideal world would be directing more resources toward malaria.
  • Effective altruists are wrong about their focus on malaria, and in an ideal world would be directing more resources toward HIV/AIDS.
  • They are both right "in their own way"; HIV/AIDS spending is the right call to make for DAH spenders whereas malaria spending is the right thing to do for effective altruists. While the most conciliatory to all sides, this also demands the most explanation, since relativism challenges some of the implicit and explicit ideas of effective altruism.

I have explored some more specific hypotheses in a comment on my Facebook post, which I shall not repeat here for brevity.

I've already spent a fair amount of effort collating the history of malaria, including funding a bunch of malaria-related timelines such as timeline of malaria, timeline of mosquito net distribution, timeline of the Global Fund, timeline of malaria vaccine, timeline of Against Malaria Foundation, and timeline of malaria in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. I intend to spend similar effort on HIV/AIDS, and return to the puzzle after that. However, I'm curious about any thoughts readers here have on the puzzle, including whether you find it interesting, potential resolutions or directions to explore, or refutations of the premises of the puzzle.

Thanks to Sebastian Sanchez and Issa Rice for working on the linked timelines. Thanks to Howie Lempel for commenting with thoughts on my original Facebook post. And thanks to IHME for collating Development Assistance for Health (DAH) spending, looking at which inspired this post.

6

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments4


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Josh Jacobson9
0
0

The vast majority of large institutional spending is somewhat static. When there have been major shifts, it is usually in response to the combination of highly successful marketing campaigns and new events.

Malaria has been largely ongoing, without much newsworthiness (to regular media outlets) or specific press. It's funding therefore is likely to have stayed at a somewhat static level in most organizations.

In contrast, HIV/AIDS was emergent in previous decades. It went from nothing to being highly prominent in a short time period. Relatively large budgets were allocated against it because:

  1. It showed a pattern of significant growth, and there was significant fear that not containing it could lead to runaway growth.

  2. It emerged from 0 cases to being prominent, which was highly newsworthy.

  3. There was a strong coordinated marketing campaign to get governments and IGOs to strongly address it.

HIV/AIDS funding came at a relatively high level as a result, and because funding is largely static and the problem remains, it has stayed that way.

Reply
Robert_Wiblin4
0
0

The reason historically is that bed nets seem to deliver more improved health per dollar (one QALY <$100) than scaling up delivery of ARVs (which seem to cost a few hundred dollars per QALY depending on what study you look at). ARVs have gotten cheaper, but not yet enough to beat bed nets as far as I'm aware.

If you were funding biomedical research HIV may well look better, because the damage done by HIV is increasing, while malaria is gradually being beaten back. But most EA funding hasn't gone to medical research due to the major challenges that individual donors trying to support that kind of work.

Reply
Peter Wildeford3
0
0

For some of the research prior to starting Charity Science Health, I recall looking at two HIV interventions and ending up not that impressed. We summarized some of the research onto this grid.

Antiretroviral therapy ended up noticeably less cost-effective than our other interventions. That might favor an interpretation for DAH spenders being wrong.

On the other hand, prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV seemed pretty cost-effective, but the field was quite crowded already with a lot of pre-existing organizations working in the area and seeming to do quite well. This might favor a "both right" interpretation, if we assume that DAH funders has already used up all the room for more funding that Givewell / OpenPhil / EA would have used.

Reply
marialma0
0
0

I think, in this type of analysis, for an infectious disease, it's really important to look at potential for spread as well.

Malaria is region-constricted (only places with the right mosquitoes), whereas HIV is not. Therefore, there's a natural cap at the amount of malaria we can have if malaria control ceased to exist, whereas HIV's 'natural cap' is potentially "all susceptible humans".

If you include "all future infections" into the analysis, how much suffering due to HIV can be avoided due to current efforts to control HIV? I mean, you can sort of see this in a natural experiment created by South Africa's HIV denialism - 18.5% of the population there is infected, compared to 6% of Kenya and 3% of Nigeria, despite both Kenya and Nigeria having lower GDP/capita than South Africa. There's an article on the costs of HIV denialism in SA here. Obviously, societal dynamics are different in SA than other places, but 3x the amount of HIV is a pretty significant number.

Anyway, the CBAs on interventions like promoting condom use, testing services, education campaigns, and such are (obviously) difficult to do, but that... really doesn't mean we shouldn't be funding them.

As for agony of HIV over malaria - are you sure? Does this include the 'psychic' cost of HIV (mental stress, stigma, constrained social mobility, shunning from society/friends/family) along with the physical cost?

Reply
More from vipulnaik
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
At the last EAG Bay Area, I gave a workshop on navigating a difficult job market, which I repeated days ago at EAG London. A few people have asked for my notes and slides, so I’ve decided to share them here.  This is the slide deck I used.   Below is a low-effort loose transcript, minus the interactive bits (you can see these on the slides in the form of reflection and discussion prompts with a timer). In my opinion, some interactive elements were rushed because I stubbornly wanted to pack too much into the session. If you’re going to re-use them, I recommend you allow for more time than I did if you can (and if you can’t, I empathise with the struggle of making difficult trade-offs due to time constraints).  One of the benefits of written communication over spoken communication is that you can be very precise and comprehensive. I’m sorry that those benefits are wasted on this post. Ideally, I’d have turned my speaker notes from the session into a more nuanced written post that would include a hundred extra points that I wanted to make and caveats that I wanted to add. Unfortunately, I’m a busy person, and I’ve come to accept that such a post will never exist. So I’m sharing this instead as a MVP that I believe can still be valuable –certainly more valuable than nothing!  Introduction 80,000 Hours’ whole thing is asking: Have you considered using your career to have an impact? As an advisor, I now speak with lots of people who have indeed considered it and very much want it – they don't need persuading. What they need is help navigating a tough job market. I want to use this session to spread some messages I keep repeating in these calls and create common knowledge about the job landscape.  But first, a couple of caveats: 1. Oh my, I wonder if volunteering to run this session was a terrible idea. Giving advice to one person is difficult; giving advice to many people simultaneously is impossible. You all have different skill sets, are at different points in
 ·  · 47m read
 · 
Thank you to Arepo and Eli Lifland for looking over this article for errors.  I am sorry that this article is so long. Every time I thought I was done with it I ran into more issues with the model, and I wanted to be as thorough as I could. I’m not going to blame anyone for skimming parts of this article.  Note that the majority of this article was written before Eli’s updated model was released (the site was updated june 8th). His new model improves on some of my objections, but the majority still stand.   Introduction: AI 2027 is an article written by the “AI futures team”. The primary piece is a short story penned by Scott Alexander, depicting a month by month scenario of a near-future where AI becomes superintelligent in 2027,proceeding to automate the entire economy in only a year or two and then either kills us all or does not kill us all, depending on government policies.  What makes AI 2027 different from other similar short stories is that it is presented as a forecast based on rigorous modelling and data analysis from forecasting experts. It is accompanied by five appendices of “detailed research supporting these predictions” and a codebase for simulations. They state that “hundreds” of people reviewed the text, including AI expert Yoshua Bengio, although some of these reviewers only saw bits of it. The scenario in the short story is not the median forecast for any AI futures author, and none of the AI2027 authors actually believe that 2027 is the median year for a singularity to happen. But the argument they make is that 2027 is a plausible year, and they back it up with images of sophisticated looking modelling like the following: This combination of compelling short story and seemingly-rigorous research may have been the secret sauce that let the article to go viral and be treated as a serious project:To quote the authors themselves: It’s been a crazy few weeks here at the AI Futures Project. Almost a million people visited our webpage; 166,00
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- > Despite setbacks, battery cages are on the retreat My colleague Emma Buckland contributed (excellent) research to this piece. All opinions and errors are mine alone. It’s deadline time. Over the last decade, many of the world’s largest food companies — from McDonald’s to Walmart — pledged to stop sourcing eggs from caged hens in at least their biggest markets. All in, over 2,700 companies globally have now pledged to go cage-free. Good things take time, and companies insisted they needed a lot of it to transition their egg supply chains — most set 2025 deadlines to do so. Over the years, companies reassured anxious advocates that their transitions were on track. But now, with just seven months left, it turns out that many are not. Walmart backtracked first, blaming both its customers and suppliers, who “have not kept pace with our aspiration to transition to a full cage-free egg supply chain.” Kroger soon followed suit. Others, like Target, waited until the last minute, when they could blame bird flu and high egg prices for their backtracks. Then there are those who have just gone quiet. Some, like Subway and Best Western, still insist they’ll be 100% cage-free by year’s end, but haven’t shared updates on their progress in years. Others, like Albertsons and Marriott, are sharing their progress, but have quietly removed their pledges to reach 100% cage-free. Opportunistic politicians are now getting in on the act. Nevada’s Republican governor recently delayed his state’s impending ban on caged eggs by 120 days. Arizona’s Democratic governor then did one better by delaying her state’s ban by seven years. US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins is trying to outdo them all by pushing Congress to wipe out all stat
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
15
Introducing Impact Catalyst - a high-impact nonprofit incubation program in Latin America
Verónica Suárez M.
· · 3m read
0
0
48
Funding needed to preserve critical malaria vaccine research
Seth Ari Sim-Son Hoffman
· · 3m read
6
6
5
IPA Looking for Africa-based Associate Director for its Right-Fit Evidence Unit
Andrés Parrado
· · 6m read
0
0
View more