
Saving lives for seven cents each (2013) - luu
https://www.jefftk.com/p/saving-lives-for-seven-cents-each
======
TeMPOraL
> _But if we really could save children 's lives for 7¢ then why would we
> consider anything else on Unicef's list?_

In general, diminishing returns. As an intervention is being funded and makes
an impact, eventually getting additional impact on the margin is more and more
expensive. As a general rule, you should always fund the most cost-effective
intervention - which means funding each intervention up to the point it stops
being the most cost-effective one, and then switching to new-best thing.

------
Bartweiss
> _The "a little money goes a ridiculously long way" meme needs to stop._

I think people tend to jump straight to debating _whether_ we should pursue
charity by cost-effectiveness. That seems unproductive to me unless people
have some idea what those costs _actually are_. Advertising like this
seriously undermines any hope of that.

We could imagine, and UNICEF might argue, that these ads just motivate people
to give money and don't set their expectations long-term. But when this is
actually surveyed[1], we find that the median person thinks you can save a
life for <$50. That's concerning on two levels. First, it means any charity
that honestly advertises how much it spends to help people will look
_terrible_. Second, the worrying question of what people would do if they knew
the real number. Would people slash their donations if they thought the money
would go 1% as far? Increase them to do equal good? Or is the amount we give
to charity just not meaningfully correlated with how much it helps?

I wish charities in general would stop doing this sort of advertising. But I
_especially_ wish the most reputable charities would stop. UNICEF and the Red
Cross are highly trusted sources for journalists and the public alike, so it's
particularly alarming when they publicize claims like 7¢ to "save" a child, or
"up to" 3 lives saved per blood donation[2].

[1] [https://80000hours.org/2017/05/most-people-report-
believing-...](https://80000hours.org/2017/05/most-people-report-believing-
its-incredibly-cheap-to-save-lives-in-the-developing-world/)

[2] This stat is common, but extremely dubious. Beyond the obvious "up to"
trick, the best case number still appears to be <1\.
[https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/1289/how...](https://medicalsciences.stackexchange.com/questions/1289/how-
many-lives-are-saved-from-one-donation-of-blood)

------
J-dawg
> _But if we really could save children 's lives for 7¢ then why would we
> consider anything else on Unicef's list?_

I've always taken issue with this type of campaigning, and it makes me want to
actively avoid any charity that uses it.

In addition to the author's comment quoted above, it implies there's a long
line of children, and they're just waiting for another 7 cent donation so they
can vaccinate the next kid.

This is clearly not true, and if it were true, it would make many of the other
activities of large charities morally repugnant. How could anyone justify
renting offices in major cities, and employing executives on 6-figure
salaries, when that money could pay for millions of 7 cent vaccinations?

Obviously, it's a lot more complicated than that. But the fact that the
charity is willing to lie to me so easily makes me wonder what else they are
lying about.

------
quotha
I think we can save lives if we stop spending them

------
cabaalis
> 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!

This seems like silly thinking. I don't think anyone would reasonably believe
they put all the money they receive into powder packets. Every $1 you give
them will immediately save 14 lives!

They're just saying that's one thing they do with the money, a part of their
budget. You should be more concerned with what a given charity's
administrative overhead is. How much of that $1 goes towards the $0.07
packets, and how much pays the administrators.

~~~
twanvl
> You should be more concerned with what a given charity's administrative
> overhead is.

If charity1 has a 20% overhead and then spends the rest on saving the life of
a child for every 1000$, while charity2 has a 40% overhead but saves a child
for every remaining 500$ spent, which one is better? Overhead is just one
factor of a charity's efficiency.

Of course in this case the cost of the powder is just a small factor, and you
also need to consider the cost of distribution and other overheads. And the
fact that the effectiveness probably drops off at some point. Obviously just
spending 1B$ is not going to save 20 billion children, there aren't that many
children that need these ORS packets.

