Quotable quote from our very dear friends:
"Put differently: US philanthropy is still much, much, much more about rich guys like David Geffen slapping their names on concert halls than it is about donating to help people dying from malaria, or animals being tortured in factory farms, or preventing deaths from pandemics and out-of-control AI, to name a few EA-associated causes."
Anyways, where does buying 20 million dollar castles/crypto fraud/rampant sexual exploitation/and shrimp welfare fit into all of this chief?
Mosquito nets are still an effective intervention against malaria, not least as "there's a vaccine" is a very, very long way from "everyone is vaccinated" especially as really useful interventions such as draining marshland where A. falciparum breeds or attempting to eradicate it with insecticide are substantially harder and, also, take time. Given that half of all deaths from malaria are in children under 5 and that the malaria parasite is not transmitted between humans but from mosquitos to humans the herd immunity effect doesn't really exist if people are still getting bitten. (FWIW, my dad literally wrote a book called "Malaria")
EAs are wrong about a lot of stuff but they're not wrong about malaria eradication being about more than vaccines.
They definitely use actual numbers to try and push their agenda. It's a classic case of constructing a category. Like how we're the highest paying company in the industry of high technology, textile workers, teenagers, and dead people. Look at how much good EA-backed interventions like malaria nets are doing! Clearly this means EA-backed programs to make sure Sam Altman develops a computer god before his evil twin Alt Sam-man is also such a good use of resources that you're basically a murderer if you don't give.
You would hope they would have more big succes stories like malaria nets by now.