As well as counting the number of lives saved and protected (from malaria, vitamin A deficiency and vaccine immunity) for 1000 dollars, I think it is also important to consider the long-term effects. For example, malaria chemoprevention and vitamin A supplementation are temporary and require continuous administration to remain effective. In the case of the mosquito nets, it would be useful to know how long they last on average. In contrast, the recommended childhood vaccines, although some may require booster doses, are the option that provides greater assurance of long-term protection.
In addition, the Give Well Top Charities' evaluation of effectiveness is within a two-year period (2021-2023). Unlike the other options, the recommended childhood vaccinations are given only once per person and therefore protect new individuals without redundancy, avoiding the problem of double counting in the estimates. All the other options can (and should) be given to the same person, reducing the total number of different people benefited or saved.
So today I would choose to donate the extra 1000 Dolars to New Incentives.
However, when considering a constant and long-term donation, we should also consider that vaccination has a natural limit once the entire population is fully vaccinated (related to thinking on the margin), whereas for the malaria and vitamin A deficiency initiatives, every dollar counts as it should be continuously supplied. In this sense, it would be valuable to know how close we are to saturation in order to decide how to allocate my annual income.
I find it really interesting to read about efforts to improve decision-making through data analysis and knowledge comparison. It might seem obvious to some, but in practice, people in positions of power often rely on experts rather than engaging with the data themselves. There are always countless variables that complicate decision-making, but I’d love to learn more about how this process works—and especially how trust can be built to encourage its wider use.
As well as counting the number of lives saved and protected (from malaria, vitamin A deficiency and vaccine immunity) for 1000 dollars, I think it is also important to consider the long-term effects. For example, malaria chemoprevention and vitamin A supplementation are temporary and require continuous administration to remain effective. In the case of the mosquito nets, it would be useful to know how long they last on average. In contrast, the recommended childhood vaccines, although some may require booster doses, are the option that provides greater assurance of long-term protection.
In addition, the Give Well Top Charities' evaluation of effectiveness is within a two-year period (2021-2023). Unlike the other options, the recommended childhood vaccinations are given only once per person and therefore protect new individuals without redundancy, avoiding the problem of double counting in the estimates. All the other options can (and should) be given to the same person, reducing the total number of different people benefited or saved.
So today I would choose to donate the extra 1000 Dolars to New Incentives.
However, when considering a constant and long-term donation, we should also consider that vaccination has a natural limit once the entire population is fully vaccinated (related to thinking on the margin), whereas for the malaria and vitamin A deficiency initiatives, every dollar counts as it should be continuously supplied. In this sense, it would be valuable to know how close we are to saturation in order to decide how to allocate my annual income.
I find it really interesting to read about efforts to improve decision-making through data analysis and knowledge comparison. It might seem obvious to some, but in practice, people in positions of power often rely on experts rather than engaging with the data themselves. There are always countless variables that complicate decision-making, but I’d love to learn more about how this process works—and especially how trust can be built to encourage its wider use.