N

NickLaing

CEO and Co-Founder @ OneDay Health
11596 karmaJoined Working (6-15 years)Gulu, Ugandaonedayhealth.org

Bio

Participation
1

I'm a doctor working towards the dream that every human will have access to high quality healthcare.  I'm a medic and director of OneDay Health, which has launched 53 simple but comprehensive nurse-led health centers in remote rural Ugandan Villages. A huge thanks to the EA Cambridge student community  in 2018 for helping me realise that I could do more good by focusing on providing healthcare in remote places.

How I can help others

Understanding the NGO industrial complex, and how aid really works (or doesn't) in Northern Uganda 
Global health knowledge
 

Comments
1506

Thanks for the update, and the reasons for the name change make s lot of sense

Instinctively i don't love the new name. The word "coefficient" sounds mathsy/nerdy/complicated, while most people don't know what the word coefficient actually means. The reasoning behind the name does resonate through and i can understand the appeal.

But my instincts are probably wrong though if you've been working with an agency and the team likes it too.

All the best for the future Coefficient Giving!

Thanks @mal_graham🔸  this is super helpful and makes more sense now. I think it would make your argument far more complete if you put something like your third and fourth paragraphs here in your main article. 

And no I'm personally not worried about interventions being ecologically inert. 

As a side note its interesting that you aren't putting much effort into making interventions happen yet - my loose advice would be to get started trying some things. I get that you're trying to build a field, but to have real-world proof of this tractability it might be better to try something sooner rather than later? Otherwise it will remain theory. I'm not too fussed about arguing whether an intervention will be difficult or not - in general I think we are likely to underestimate how difficult an intervention might be.

Show me a couple of relatively easy wins (even small-ish ones) an I'll be right on board :).

what a wonderful reply...

"Because of this difference, it’s unclear to us whether a 1% income increase for 40 years should produce the same wellbeing benefit as a 40% increase for one year." for sure it's unclear, but I would on a 1 percent income increase over 40 years making a bigger difference to well-being than 40 percent over 1 year. very low confidence though it's just a hunch.

the problem is we're really unlikely to ever be able to determine that because we won't be able to statistically pick out any less than say a 5 percent yearly increase with most study sample sizes... 

i don't trust any take which is that confident that any industry is a Bubble. Even the best economists are terrible at predicting bubbles and the market is not completely useless at predicting things either.

i disagree (weakly) because i think there are few USAID funded programs that were very cost effective. GiveWell disagrees so I'm probably wrong as they have done far more research.

 I think this is an important comment, to remind those who do think this is a particularly high impact time to give.

From your perspective might be good at least that strategic voting from global health folks had got AMF up there lol.

Wow feels like strategic voting is getting real.

i think this kind of data is important and interesting, but my point was something a bit different. Only by trying to enact some of this stuff will we really find out the extent of resistance and backlash. 

I've really appreciated comments and reflections from @Yarrow Bouchard 🔸 and I think in his case at least this does feel a bit unfair. Its good to encourage new people on the forum, unless they are posting particularly egrarious thing which I don't think he has been.

 

Load more