5 ms·

> The Humane League “spares between -6 and 13 farmed animals per dollar spent.” I'm confused by this, does the negative 6 mean a dollar could actually result i

> The Humane League “spares between -6 and 13 farmed animals per dollar spent.” I'm confused by this, does the negative 6 mean a dollar could actually result in 6 MORE animal deaths?

js2 5y ago
> Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-humane-league/2018-nov/#fn1-4-24548 https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-human...
bsza 5y ago
From the linked overview page: > Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
reureu 5y ago
Yes, that's exactly what it means. The author's argument is entirely predicated on a confidence interval that includes 0. Your $100 donation to The Humane League could kill 600 animals or save 1300 animals, or anything in between. Personally, that's not a compelling argument to me.
- nohuck13 5y ago
  No, assuming [-6,13] is a 95% confidence interval on a normal distribution with mean of 3.5 (substitute your own reasonable assumptions about distribution and sample size), it's plausibly something like 3x more likely that the effect is positive.
SkySkimmer 5y ago
Yes, for instance https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-humane-league/2018-nov/#fn2-30-24548 https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-human... > The results from several studies suggest higher levels of mortality in cage-free systems compared to battery cages and there is reason to believe that higher levels of mortality correspond to lower levels of welfare since the increased mortality may result from disease, feather pecking, and injuries. Among the nine experts interviewed in The Open Philanthropy Project’s report “How Will Hen Welfare be Impacted by the Transition to Cage-Free Housing?” there was unanimous agreement that mortality will likely be significantly higher following the transition to cage-free systems. The authors of the report express optimism that producers will be motivated to and capable of reducing mortality levels to be comparable with battery cages and maintain the view that cage-free systems will have a net positive impact on welfare in the long term. (a link to the mentioned report is included in the footnote)

> The Humane League “spares between -6 and 13 farmed animals per dollar spent.” I'm confused by this, does the negative 6 mean a dollar could actually result in 6 MORE animal deaths?

js2 5y ago

> Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them. https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-humane-league/2018-nov/#fn1-4-24548 https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-human...

bsza 5y ago

From the linked overview page: > Sometimes our estimated cost-effectiveness ranges include negative numbers if we are not certain that an intervention has a positive effect, and it could have a negative effect, even if we think that isn’t likely. This doesn’t necessarily mean we think those interventions are equally likely to harm animals as to help them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

reureu 5y ago

Yes, that's exactly what it means. The author's argument is entirely predicated on a confidence interval that includes 0. Your $100 donation to The Humane League could kill 600 animals or save 1300 animals, or anything in between. Personally, that's not a compelling argument to me.

nohuck13 5y ago
No, assuming [-6,13] is a 95% confidence interval on a normal distribution with mean of 3.5 (substitute your own reasonable assumptions about distribution and sample size), it's plausibly something like 3x more likely that the effect is positive.

SkySkimmer 5y ago

Yes, for instance https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-humane-league/2018-nov/#fn2-30-24548 https://animalcharityevaluators.org/charity-review/the-human... > The results from several studies suggest higher levels of mortality in cage-free systems compared to battery cages and there is reason to believe that higher levels of mortality correspond to lower levels of welfare since the increased mortality may result from disease, feather pecking, and injuries. Among the nine experts interviewed in The Open Philanthropy Project’s report “How Will Hen Welfare be Impacted by the Transition to Cage-Free Housing?” there was unanimous agreement that mortality will likely be significantly higher following the transition to cage-free systems. The authors of the report express optimism that producers will be motivated to and capable of reducing mortality levels to be comparable with battery cages and maintain the view that cage-free systems will have a net positive impact on welfare in the long term. (a link to the mentioned report is included in the footnote)