Exercise for 'Differences in Impact'

For the sake of using the handbook for an intro fellowship - where is the "earlier estimate of your future income" located, if anywhere, in the handbook? Does it refer to some exercise or to a graph in one of the articles on economic inequality? And if there is no such thing, perhaps an alternative phrasing or including the estimate in the exercise would be great!

Part A. 

This will not be fully theoretical: I've already been donating 5% for the last 2 year. First pick would be the Malaria Consortium. It seems to be very cost-effective ($5,000 per life saved on average, $7 ). It also has strong evidence of impact.

Second option would be the Against Malaria Foundation. It is pretty similar to the first choice in target, effectiveness and evidence of impact, but numbers are slightly worse (perhaps?). Cost per life is $2000 dollars more, which looks worse, but cost of output (per bednet output cost, as opposed to the consortium's children treated with a full course of medicine) is a bit lower, at $6.  Also, working on prevention seems more far-sighted and perhaps controlable. 

Third choice, Helen Keller International. Cost of outcome is practically the same as in the two previous cases, although it is much cheaper in cost of output (just $2 for supplements), but I am more uncertain about the specific results.

Part B. 

For all the reasons exposed above, if I have to choose only one, it would be the Malaria Consortium.

Part C.

Generally, decisions relating to investments for retirement in 20 years's time. Perhaps I should also consider alternative jobs or job promotion through this quantitative mindset.

A.

Hellen Keller: 30,000 Vitamin A supplements, 10 lives saved 

New Incentives: 200 vaccinations, 6 lives saved

Malaria Consortium: 3000 children protected, 10 lives saved

B.

With only 1,000 dollars, I would donate to Hellen Keller International because of the high cost-effectiveness of the charity.

C.

Other issues I would like to consider include biodiversity losses and human rights interventions

A.

I would go for Malaria Consortium, which, from the information I have read, has interventions at the earliest possible age of children, to provide anti-malaria drugs and immunization of infants, and are likely to avert so many deaths.  There will be prevention of sickness for millions of children, and probably 50% or more lives saved, of the total population of children. when children are young, their immunity is quite low and it is better to save lives at that tender age. Adults have higher immunity levels, so other interventions can be used with adults.

If immunization against malaria is recommended soon, the impact will be even greater. 

B.

With only 1,000 dollars, I would donate to Hellen Keller International because of the low cost of one dollar per vitamin distributed. This would have a greater impact from the available total funding.  

C.

Other issues I would like to consider include issues of both Legal and Medical interventions, especially where one must be done without ignoring the other.

Part A

Math + surface level considerations based on the information in the links (I'm new here):

Hellen Keller International
- lives saved: 23
- vitamin A supplements administered: 79 977
- evidence of impact: strong
- has room for more funding

Malaria Consortium
- lives saved: 16
- children seasonally protected from malaria: 11 425
- evidence of impact: exceptionally strong
- has room for more funding

Against Malaria Foundation
- lives saved: 14,5
- anti-malaria nets purchased: 15 995
    - iirc the nets last for ~3 years (probably taken into account by GL already)
- it's a well-known charity within the EA community (to the point it's become a meme) so I cautiously assume it gets more funding than the others/is somewhat less neglected
- added factor of insect suffering? (how much suffering does dying from insecticides generate vs the alternatives)

New Incentives
- lives saved: 16
- children vaccinated: 500
    - I assume the effects are long-lasting, so even if HKI or MC interventions are cheaper per person, NI vaccinations could be more effective when compared one to one (?)
- evidence of impact: strong

Part B

I'm hesitating between HKI and NI, so I'll use the numbers to break the tie/as a correction for my scope neglect and go with Hellen Keller International (they also stated they have more room for funding)

Part C

- impact of different career paths I'm considering
- I need to finally do an evaluation of the most effective food so I can just buy beans or legumes in bulk and not make calculations every time I'm grocery shopping
- impact of learning/self-development vs what else I could be doing in this time

A. $362,411.89 would be donated over the course of my lifetime. 

I would consider New Incentives-Vaccines as it is a highly rated PREVENTATIVE charity. All are around $5K per life saved, but many people in this forum, and likely at large, have contributed to malaria treatment. However, a portion of this donation (about 33% each?) would also go to Helen Keller Intl (Vitamin A) and Malaria Consortium, as these are all preventative, clinical solutions to diseases in developing countries.

B. If I only had a thousand dollars, I would rather concentrate my efforts all into Malaria Consortium, as the statistics suggest that it is a long-term solution "protect a child from malaria," if more expensive than the $2 Helen Keller rate (this only supplies vitamins for a year).

C. Since I plan to go into academic research in biology, it is paramount to me that I consider a field that would actively save many lives (and preferably develop solutions to new or existing problems at low cost).

Malaria Consortium: 12,000 children protected, 24 lives saved.

New incentives: 1,200 children vaccinated, 2 lives saved

Hellen Keller : 109,000 children supplied with Vitamin A supplements, 40 lives saved

B.

With a $120,000 I will donate to Hellen Keller because of its high effectiveness.

Part A

Malaria Consortium: 10,000 cases of malaria prevented, estimated 17 lives saved

Nets to prevent malaria: 4000 cases of malaria prevented,  10 lives saved

Part B.

With only 1,000 dollars, I would donate to  the Malaria consortium because I will be working on preventing the disease before it occurs and since the vaccine has a long term impact.

Part A:

1. Nets to prevent Malaria: 1564 nets provided, with 2 deaths prevented.

2. Cash incentives for routine childhood vaccines: 50 infants vaccinated, with 2 deaths prevented.

3. Supplements to prevent vitamin A deficiency: 3,910 VAS provided to children, with 2 deaths prevented.

Part B:

If given $1000 dollars to donate to any of the above charities, I would choose the Nets to prevent Malaria because it shows a larger impact achieved based on the $1000 donation.

Part-A

1,malaria consortium:

3142 child protected      4.4 life saved

2.against malaria foundation:

4400 bed nets                    4 life saved

3. Helen Keller international:

11000 dose of supplement 4.4 life saved

4.new incentives:

141 child vaccinated               4.4 life saved

  Part-B

with $1000 to donate i'd prefer new initiatives over the other three because

1. Though the number of people served per $1000 may be less but the impacts are long term as vaccines will protect the children for a much longer period of their life some even can protect them for life.
2.  the protection is against a number killer disease.

Part_C

1. choosing my post retirement life options to be more impactful
2. selecting between various health schemes for post retirement life
3. creating a will for my leftover assets.

A.

1. Malaria Consortium: 28,571 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 44 deaths averted
2. Against Malaria Foundation: 40,000 nets distributed, with an estimate of 57 deaths averted
3. Helen Keller International: 166,667 children supplemented with Vitamin A, with an estimate of 67 deaths averted

These estimates highlight the substantial impact that donations can have on global health, especially through highly effective charities identified by GiveWell.

B.

Helen Keller International would be my choice for the $1,000 donation due to its high cost-effectiveness in saving lives, the broad health benefits of Vitamin A supplementation, and the significant number of children who can be helped with this amount.

C.

By using quantitative estimates to compare the outcomes, my decision would be one can make more environmentally conscious choices that contribute to sustainability and reduce their ecological footprint.

A

New incentive 66 infants vaccinated, with an estimate of 8 deaths averted.

B

Helen Keller International demonstrates the highest estimated lives saved per dollar donated among the three charities. With a cost-effectiveness of $3,500 per life saved, the potential impact of saving lives is significantly higher compared to the other two charities. While all charities contribute to meaningful causes, the goal is to maximize the positive outcome with the available donation, and Helen Keller International appears to offer the most significant impact in terms of lives saved per dollar.

C

Track record.

A. 
Malaria Consortium: ~45,770 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 64 deaths averted.
Hellen Keller International: ~320,387 vitamin A supplements delivered, with an estimate of 64 lives saved.
New Incentives: ~2,067 infants vaccinated, with an estimate of 64 lives saved.

B.
With just $1,000 I would donate to the Helen Keller International Vitamin A Supplementation program. This program (while labeled "very strong" rather than "exceptionally strong"-- I'll need to investigate why) appears to offer the most impact per dollar spent (most lives saved per contribution). Furthermore, the estimate is that with just $1, an important vitamin A supplement may be provided for an infant. Though this does not necessarily correlate to saving that infant's life, the extremely small dollar amount could have other important implications regarding an increase to quality of life for that individual. 

C. Other important life decisions that I would consider generating quantitative estimates and comparing outcomes for: (1) where I would prefer to live/work (between my 2 nationalities), taking into account salaries and social programs, (2) whether or not it makes financial sense to go back to school/earn a graduate degree, taking into account debt incurrence and potential for increased salary/positions with better benefits.

A.

Malaria Consortium: about 42,800 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 60 deaths averted.

Helen Keller: about 280,000 vitamin A supplements delivered, with an estimate of 86 deaths averted.

New Incentives: about 1,800 infants vaccinated, with an estimate of 60 deaths averted.

B.

If I had $1,000 to donate, I would pick "Helen Keller" since it is the most effective charity in terms of averted deaths (0.3 deaths averted compared to 0.2 for the other two charities) and effective action fulfilled (1,000 vitamin A supplements), given the limited budget.

C.

Since I am interested in geopolitics and would like to work in the economic or diplomatic field, I would consider such factors in the choice of my career. For example, I could look for a job as an economic advisor in an international organization or national government that needs to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of its policies.

The link provided in the article to estimate total earnings has this input value for the model "Estimated annual raises & cost of living increases". I do not know what this is. How do I calculate it for myself? 

Changing this input by 10% results in a roughly 3% change in the result or about $100,000 in total earnings. So the model output is pretty sensitive to this input. 

Against Malaria Foundation: 77,000 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimated 12 lives saved.

I would choose the Against Malaria Foundation because it is one of the highest-impact charities on the list. The effectiveness is exceptionally high and would allow more lives to be saved compared to my other choice, the Malaria Consortium. It also addresses a problem that is larger in scale compared to my other choice, the Helen Keller Foundation with over 600,000 people dying of malaria annually. Therefore, the numbers themselves state that the Against Malaria Foundation is where I should direct my donation.

A. Helen Keller INTL, $3,500 per life saved, 10 lives saved

B. Only being able to donate to one place with $1,000 I think I would choose to donate to the Malaria Consortium because it has a focus on children and infants and could save a lot of lives. In cost effectiveness, it costs "$7 to protect a child from Malaria." 

A. If I had to choose, I would donate to Malaria Consortium. Based on the information I have reviewed, they focus on interventions for young children, providing anti-malaria drugs and immunization to infants, which has the potential to prevent a significant number of deaths. By targeting children at an early age when their immunity is still developing, the impact can be substantial. Additionally, if there is a recommendation for early malaria immunization, the effect could be even greater. B. With only $1,000 to donate, I would choose to support Helen Keller International. Their distribution of vitamins costs only $1 per dose, which means that with the available funding, I can reach a larger number of people and have a greater overall impact. C. There are other decisions in life where it would be beneficial to generate quantitative estimates and compare outcomes. For example, when considering legal and medical interventions, it would be valuable to assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of each option to make an informed decision without neglecting any important factors.

Part A. 114 lives saved [Medicines For Malaria] 163 lives saved [Helen Keller] 114 lives saved [New incentives]

Part B. I would go with Malaria Consortium. Even though the cost effectiveness of Helen Keller international is higher, the impact isn't exceptionally good. Malaria affects a large number of people and the death rate is higher. Moreover the room left for finding for Malaria Consortium is also higher. We have to make sure we help a large number of people with promising impact. This might be contrary to the decisions of other people but it's based on careful observation.

Part C. I'm interested in the field of medicine. I'm willing to work in the same area. Poverty kills people and mostly the reason is lack of resources for treatment and prevention of deceases. We can treat lack of nutrition via medicine which will not only affect individual lives but will also drastically improve economy.

A. Malaria Consortium: 134,683 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 26 deaths averted.

Against Malaria Foundation: 134,683 cases of malaria prevented, with an estimate of 34 deaths averted.

Helen Keller International: 942,785 delivery of a vitamin A supplement, with an estimate of 269 deaths averted.

B. Helen Keller International: would be my pick. Simply because this is the most cost effective donation to impact most number of lives. 

C. Most consumptions on goods.

A. In line with the goals and objectives of e.a, I feel contributing to the malaria consortium, Helen Keller international and the new incentive platforms, which all are geared towards charities in the world,with respect to various dimensions and aspects regarding people's health and advancement, would be of immense benefits and should be supported.

B. I would support the new incentive scheme, because of the large number of people,whom owing to religious, cultural and certain social factors,have been denied certain basic immunizations,which if they were given,would have saved them from certain disabilities and health defamatory state,they are currently managing.

C. Other aspects of my life,which I would work on,includes issues as regards climate change,which is already an existential crisis,as the data and other analytical outcomes, would I continually work, towards effectively and efficiently understanding,and using it's outcomes,with the aim of positively impacting our societies and the world at large.