= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanArmak comments on Rationality Quotes November 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (898)
The information is available, but takes time and work to interpret. I gave a link with data. From that page, you can get to http://publications.milliman.com/research/health-rr/pdfs/2008-us-organ-tisse-RR4-1-08.pdf which provides much more detail. Please consult it, and if you need more, I'm available starting at $100/hr.
Point is, these discussions are kind of pointless without quantitative context. If you can give someone 80 years of healthy lifespan for a dollar, few people would object. If you can give someone one day of agony for a billion dollars, few people would support. Most medical interventions fall somewhere in between. Vaccinations are closer to the former, organ transplants closer to the latter.
That's not how RoI works.
Why not? The investment here being the death of the donor.
The benefit is doubled in the second case, but the investment is much larger (obviously), so RoI is not doubled. In fact, the investment is more than doubled (you have to pay for two transplants instead of one, as well as killing someone), so the RoI plummets.
Thanks, it's clear to me now. It seems obvious but I didn't understand it correctly the first time around.
What IainM said. RoI is the ratio return/investment. The return is doubled, the investment is (substantially) more than doubled, thus the ratio decreases.