From eb9266b92ef3150c32afb5cfa6dfbcfdbf85455f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nuno Sempere Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2022 21:01:20 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] tweak --- blog/2022/09/28/granular-AMF/index.md | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/blog/2022/09/28/granular-AMF/index.md b/blog/2022/09/28/granular-AMF/index.md index 995bde3..749a94b 100644 --- a/blog/2022/09/28/granular-AMF/index.md +++ b/blog/2022/09/28/granular-AMF/index.md @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ Use a less coarse analysis of AMF beneficiary age and consider counterfactual deaths =================================================================================== +**tl;dr**: GiveWell considers a fairly coarse division of beneficiary age, and groups children of 0 to 5 years old together. This may lead to inaccurate or inexact calculations. In addition, GiveWell doesn't completely account for counterfactual mortality: where a beneficiary is saved from dying of malaria but dies later anyways, although this inaccuracy is not as severe as it could be. + Following up on [Use distributions to more parsimoniously estimate impact](https://nunosempere.com/blog/2022/09/15/use-distributions-to-more-parsimoniously-estimate-impact/), I was looking at the population analysis of the AMF distributions, because a [previous attempt](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4Qdjkf8PatGBsBExK/adding-quantified-uncertainty-to-givewell-s-cost) at adding uncertainty to the analysis was messier than I would have wished. But following up on that analysis, I realized that [the strategy GiveWell uses](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tytvmV_32H8XGGRJlUzRDTKTHrdevPIYmb_uc6aLeas/edit#gid=1364064522) is: