I absolutely love that it infers resolving dates from the text! I was positively delighted when the field populated itself when I wrote "by the beginning of september". This is especially important on mobile.
Excited to see if this is a useful tool. Very polished, nice work!
Saving someone a google search hopefully: XDRTB = Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis MDRTB = Multi drug-resistant tuberculosis
Seems like it's my week of learning a bit about tuberculosis! What's up with the acronyms in the tuberculosis-space anyways? TB isn't that much shorter than tuberculosis.
I did a little more digging, and through a WHO report referenced by the Gates Foundation in their article, I think I've found something that could be the source of the claims in the report I skimmed.
Portnoy, A., et al. (2022). The cost and cost-effectiveness of novel tuberculosis vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: a modelling study. medRxiv, 2022.05.04.22274654. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.04.22274654
Interestingly, the baseline scenario assumes a vaccine price similar to you, around 5 USD per dose in a 2-dose regiment, which in my naive reading seems to confirm that the bulk of the costs are in fact in logistics. Of course, the headline is that even if the costs here are higher than one would like, it's still hugely cost-effective in terms of return on investment, and great news for the world as a whole!
Even if (on an extremely shallow read) it seems like it doesn't quite cross GiveWell's bar for cost-effectiveness. Unless I am confused about something. Again, if anyone knows if GiveWell has a take on this, I'd be very happy to see :)
"In the report I've referenced they project around 12-14 billion USD for vaccinations from 2027 to and including 2030, summing to around 50 billion. And this is assuming the vaccine has been developed. They put another 10 billion on top for vaccine R&D."
- Where did you get that from?" I couldn't find the 10 billion figure for R&D I thought that was part of their total.
Thanks for pointing out I forgot to mention where I got that from! It's from Table B. Resources needed to accelerate R&D of new TB tools, 2023–2030, page 15 in the report.
I'm sure gates foundation are working very hard on keeping costs down, and let's hope they succeed! I do have a feeling that the bulk of the costs for vaccinations come from the distribution and logistics rather than the production costs, but this is just my vague intuition.
New Incentives, a GiveWell recommended charity, uses roughly 100 USD per vaccination.
I'm not sure how this new trial impacts Stop TB Partnership's expectations for development costs, but hopefully it turns out to be much cheaper than their expert group estimated at the time of the report being written :)
If you have the time I'm sure they'd be happy to answer an email!
I have no idea what's needed in terms of production costs, distribution costs etc. but it's an interesting back of the envelope calculation nevertheless.
In the report I've referenced they project around 12-14 billion USD for vaccinations from 2027 to and including 2030, summing to around 50 billion. And this is assuming the vaccine has been developed. They put another 10 billion on top for vaccine R&D.
This is what they write in the report:
Adequate funding must be mobilized to support the manufacturing, procurement and distribution of vaccines, especially in high-burden settings.
This ist he first Global Plan to estimate the costs for rolling out new TB vaccines. Global costs to implement a new vaccine are projected to average US$ 13.15 billion annually from 2027 through 2030, totalling US$ 52.6 billion. Modelled cost estimates include costs to scale up the use of a two-dose TB vaccine, reaching at least 60% of adults and adolescents by 2028, and to maintain 60% coverage or more after that. The cost of vaccine dose units and the operational cost for vaccine delivery have been informed by the experience of rolling out COVID-19 vaccines.
I did read parts of chapter 9 on costs to try to get a better picture of what goes into these estimates, but didn't find anything very detailed in my quick scan. So I'm not sure exactly how they come up with these numbers.
It does seem that this is assuming world-wide distribution, and that the costs vary quite a bit depending on the particulars of any specific region. See f.ex. Table 19 on page 145 in the report.
Talking from my time in EA NTNU, my experience was indeed the complete opposite. Funding and follow up from CEA was excellent, kind and thoughtful. There were virtually zero strings attached and at no point did I feel like they were controlling.
The feelings of other organisers might differ of course, but I've not heard about this from anyone personally, and I did talk to quite a lot of student group leaders around 2017-2019.
Seems like this is an investment related to the Global Plan to End TB, 2023-2030. Over the period they call for ~250 billion USD in funding[1]. They state that in the status quo scenario we lose 234 million DALYs[2] to TB. It's a little hard to get the exact number, but looks like they aim to reduce this by around 50% over the period as a whole (?). Around 2 000 USD per DALY on average, which is a fair bit higher than what GiveWell cites for their top charities. I should note that some of the costs are in R&D which will pay dividends beyond 2030.
Given that they aim to reduce TB, cases and deaths, by 80% and 90% respectively in 2030[3], I'm guessing that some of the work should be substantially more cost-effective than the average.
I've not dug into the plan at all I only skimmed the headline numbers, but an interesting read nonetheless!
GiveWell has done some work on TB, but I'm not sure what their overall views are on the area. They recently pulled out of an RCT for a screening program (for unknown reasons?). As far as I can gather there was quite a lot of activity around 2009-2010, with Holden going so far as to personally give to Stop Tuberculosis Partnership. Seems like it was a top rated charity at the time.
If anyone has a good feel for what GiveWell thinks about the area I'd be very interested to hear about it! Or some pointers to where I can learn more.
I've been involved with Gi Effektivt for many years, which is the Norwegian version of what you are suggesting here. There are many effective giving orgs all over Europe, and more to come, which focus on this area exactly. In NL Doneer Effectief is probably the dutch version you are referring to?
We've been surprised to see how much people care about tax deductions, especially outside the core EA movement. I think I disagree that tax deduction are a large part of what makes a donation effective, as our main claim to effectiveness lies in the interventions themselves, which can be many orders of magnitude better than typical charities. In Norway tax deductions give you ~23% more donation capacity up to 2 500 euros. That is, you get to deduct your donations up to a ceiling of 2 500 euros (it's slightly more complicated, but it's the gist of it).
Surprisingly we see even donors donating substantially above this ceiling amount care a lot about getting their deductions. So yes, there is some evidence that this is important for donors that fit the typical EA-mindset, at least in Norway :)
There is often quite a large gap between what these kinds of surveys seem to imply and actual voter behaviour. We see this in climate change all the time. Consider the recent survey that reported that over half of young people think humanity is doomed (with regards to climate change) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58549373.
Yet we are not seeing a huge surge in support for european green parties.
I'm not sure what's going on with these surveys, but it's an interesting comparison.
I absolutely love that it infers resolving dates from the text! I was positively delighted when the field populated itself when I wrote "by the beginning of september". This is especially important on mobile.
Excited to see if this is a useful tool. Very polished, nice work!
Saving someone a google search hopefully:
XDRTB = Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis
MDRTB = Multi drug-resistant tuberculosis
Seems like it's my week of learning a bit about tuberculosis! What's up with the acronyms in the tuberculosis-space anyways? TB isn't that much shorter than tuberculosis.
I did a little more digging, and through a WHO report referenced by the Gates Foundation in their article, I think I've found something that could be the source of the claims in the report I skimmed.
Portnoy, A., et al. (2022). The cost and cost-effectiveness of novel tuberculosis vaccines in low- and middle-income countries: a modelling study. medRxiv, 2022.05.04.22274654. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.05.04.22274654
Interestingly, the baseline scenario assumes a vaccine price similar to you, around 5 USD per dose in a 2-dose regiment, which in my naive reading seems to confirm that the bulk of the costs are in fact in logistics. Of course, the headline is that even if the costs here are higher than one would like, it's still hugely cost-effective in terms of return on investment, and great news for the world as a whole!
Even if (on an extremely shallow read) it seems like it doesn't quite cross GiveWell's bar for cost-effectiveness. Unless I am confused about something. Again, if anyone knows if GiveWell has a take on this, I'd be very happy to see :)
Thanks for pointing out I forgot to mention where I got that from! It's from Table B. Resources needed to accelerate R&D of new TB tools, 2023–2030, page 15 in the report.
I'm sure gates foundation are working very hard on keeping costs down, and let's hope they succeed! I do have a feeling that the bulk of the costs for vaccinations come from the distribution and logistics rather than the production costs, but this is just my vague intuition.
New Incentives, a GiveWell recommended charity, uses roughly 100 USD per vaccination.
I'm not sure how this new trial impacts Stop TB Partnership's expectations for development costs, but hopefully it turns out to be much cheaper than their expert group estimated at the time of the report being written :)
If you have the time I'm sure they'd be happy to answer an email!
Indeed, inspiring stuff!
I have no idea what's needed in terms of production costs, distribution costs etc. but it's an interesting back of the envelope calculation nevertheless.
In the report I've referenced they project around 12-14 billion USD for vaccinations from 2027 to and including 2030, summing to around 50 billion. And this is assuming the vaccine has been developed. They put another 10 billion on top for vaccine R&D.
This is what they write in the report:
I did read parts of chapter 9 on costs to try to get a better picture of what goes into these estimates, but didn't find anything very detailed in my quick scan. So I'm not sure exactly how they come up with these numbers.
It does seem that this is assuming world-wide distribution, and that the costs vary quite a bit depending on the particulars of any specific region. See f.ex. Table 19 on page 145 in the report.
Talking from my time in EA NTNU, my experience was indeed the complete opposite. Funding and follow up from CEA was excellent, kind and thoughtful. There were virtually zero strings attached and at no point did I feel like they were controlling.
The feelings of other organisers might differ of course, but I've not heard about this from anyone personally, and I did talk to quite a lot of student group leaders around 2017-2019.
Again, this is just my experience.
Very cool!
Seems like this is an investment related to the Global Plan to End TB, 2023-2030. Over the period they call for ~250 billion USD in funding[1]. They state that in the status quo scenario we lose 234 million DALYs[2] to TB. It's a little hard to get the exact number, but looks like they aim to reduce this by around 50% over the period as a whole (?). Around 2 000 USD per DALY on average, which is a fair bit higher than what GiveWell cites for their top charities. I should note that some of the costs are in R&D which will pay dividends beyond 2030.
Given that they aim to reduce TB, cases and deaths, by 80% and 90% respectively in 2030[3], I'm guessing that some of the work should be substantially more cost-effective than the average.
I've not dug into the plan at all I only skimmed the headline numbers, but an interesting read nonetheless!
GiveWell has done some work on TB, but I'm not sure what their overall views are on the area. They recently pulled out of an RCT for a screening program (for unknown reasons?). As far as I can gather there was quite a lot of activity around 2009-2010, with Holden going so far as to personally give to Stop Tuberculosis Partnership. Seems like it was a top rated charity at the time.
If anyone has a good feel for what GiveWell thinks about the area I'd be very interested to hear about it! Or some pointers to where I can learn more.
Page 14, under "Resource needs", The Global Plan to End TB 2023-2030 [PDF]
Page 14, under "The cost of inaction", The Global Plan to End TB 2023-2030 [PDF]
Page 15, under "Projected impact", The Global Plan to End TB 2023-2030 [PDF]
I've been involved with Gi Effektivt for many years, which is the Norwegian version of what you are suggesting here. There are many effective giving orgs all over Europe, and more to come, which focus on this area exactly. In NL Doneer Effectief is probably the dutch version you are referring to?
We've been surprised to see how much people care about tax deductions, especially outside the core EA movement. I think I disagree that tax deduction are a large part of what makes a donation effective, as our main claim to effectiveness lies in the interventions themselves, which can be many orders of magnitude better than typical charities. In Norway tax deductions give you ~23% more donation capacity up to 2 500 euros. That is, you get to deduct your donations up to a ceiling of 2 500 euros (it's slightly more complicated, but it's the gist of it).
Surprisingly we see even donors donating substantially above this ceiling amount care a lot about getting their deductions. So yes, there is some evidence that this is important for donors that fit the typical EA-mindset, at least in Norway :)
There is often quite a large gap between what these kinds of surveys seem to imply and actual voter behaviour. We see this in climate change all the time. Consider the recent survey that reported that over half of young people think humanity is doomed (with regards to climate change) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58549373.
Yet we are not seeing a huge surge in support for european green parties.
I'm not sure what's going on with these surveys, but it's an interesting comparison.
To echo the general sentiment, I also want to express my gratitude and appreciation for this talk. I found it warm, inclusive and positive. Thanks!