#
>

mit/thesis qaly

→
#
>

ea forum post on qaly

→
#
>

5 problems

→
#
>

neglect non-health consequences of health interventions

→
#
>

rely on poorly informed judgements of the general public

→
#
>

fail to acknowledge extreme suffering (and happiness)

→
#
>

difficult to interpret, capturing some but not all spillover effects

→
#
>

little us in prioritizing across sectors or cause areas

→
#
>

co-design

→
#
>

build an atomic design problem that shows a tradespace of years added vs quality added

→
#
>

this might also lead to creating further breakdowns of quality

→
#
>

different metrics could also be in a tradespace together

→
#
>

breakthroughs and flops/op-ed

→
#
>

draft

→
#
>

value of quantification, even in a highly qualitative space

→
#
>

you don’t have to define all relative values to be useful

→
#
>

this is the poset

→
#
>

first pass could be a time trade-off or standard gamble analysis of each technology

→
#
>

even if the editors calculate this from their own biased perspectives, it would be valuable for surfacing the bias

→
#
>

e.g. technology x has a 10% chance of making it easier to communicate with each other, and I would rather live 9.5 years in a world where I can communicate with my family more closely vs 10 years in the current world

→
#
>

some questions

→
#
>

is this too much precision for such nuanced, short term interventions (e.g. technologies)

→
#
>

I say maybe at it’s extreme, but since we have nothing valuable

→