• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Saving lives for seven cents each

    August 9th, 2013
    giving  [html]
    As a kid I remember being very impressed with Trick-or-Treat For Unicef because they could do so much with so little money:

    When my Quaker youth group was deciding who to raise money for, we chose Unicef because (of the small number of charities we were familiar with) they made the strongest claims. Saving lives for "7¢ per dose": impressive!

    While not entirely false, however, these numbers are certainly misleading. Seven cents for oral rehydration therapy is about right in the sense that the ingredients are very cheap: sugar and salt. But if we really could save children's lives for 7¢ then why would we consider anything else on Unicef's list? Spending $17 to for a vaccination to "keep a kid safe from 6 killer diseases" would mean letting over two hundred other children die! What's going on?

    The issue with oral rehydration therapy is that the limiting factor is almost never the raw cost of the ingredients. Instead it's mostly knowlege, and that the easy places to get it to now have it. It's been a great success, but pushing it farther gets increasingly expensive. The cost of producing a packet is a really bad stand-in for the marginal cost of saving someone from death by dehydration.

    Now, technically Unicef wrote that it "can save a child" not "saves a child", so they're not really lying. [1] But they're trying to get people to donate based on a false impression of efficacy, and that's harmful. It means when GiveWell writes that the best charity they've identified saves lives for around 35,000 times more money people are surprised at the cost and wonder why they can't manage to do better. It makes people think quantifying the good of donations is a solved problem when that process still gives results that are too fragile to be used as your raw decision-making metric. The "a little money goes a ridiculously long way" meme needs to stop.


    [1] Though they use the same wording for things like "can provide a soccer ball" where there's far less uncertainty.

    Comment via: google plus, facebook, hacker news

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Who Should Bear the Risk in Infrastructure Projects?

    The answer to the question is the public sector, always. It’s okay to have private-sector involvement in construction, but the risk must be borne by the public sector, or else the private sector will just want more money to compensate for the extra risk. …

    via Pedestrian Observations November 30, 2020

    Fireside Friday, November 27, 2020

    Hey folks! Fireside this week. A bit of a change-up in terms of the coming attractions. I had planned to start “Textiles, How Did They Make It?” next, but I want to do a bit more reading on some of the initial stages of textile production (that is, the pr…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry November 27, 2020

    Thoughts you mightn't have thunk about remote meetings

    Welcome to this week's edition of "building a startup in 2020," in which all your meetings are suddenly remote, and you probably weren't prepared for it. I know I wasn't. We started a "fully remote" company back in 2019, but …

    via apenwarr November 23, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact