This feels much closer to how I experienced EA student groups 5-7yrs ago - e.g. Tom and Jacob did exactly this with the Oxford Prioritisation Project, and wrote up a very detailed evaluation of it. 

Interestingly, if you speak to the people leading the global policy response on AMR the main theme that comes out is "we  should be prioritising actions more effectively"*. That was one of the key findings of speaking to 150+ leaders in the field for a report  (I was involved in most of these interviews; opinion is theirs, not mine independently). This holds true across sectors, and across elements of the response. I think EA could contribute a lot here, but in my experience EA has made a (sometimes conscious, sometimes implicit) choice to deprioritise AMR as a cause (with the exception of the  PAR Foundation's great work). If anyone is interested in working on AMR in an EA context, would love to chat. 

*This is a bit of a simplification of "we have a spaghetti bowl of complex, interlinked biomedical and policy challenges and all contribute and so we try and solve all of them at the same time but we have limited ressources; and this is actually a second-order problem to the first-order problem of 'we don't have good estimates on which aspect of the response we should prioritise, e.g. does use in factory farms drive 5% or 30% of the resistance burden'". But the core takeaway is prioritisation is needed in a resource-constrained environment while you're on a train that is heading off a cliff, fast.

Many governments abolish conscription over time because citizens precisely don't agree with that (as of 2011, countries with active military forces were roughly split in half between those with some form of conscription or emergency conscription, and those with no conscription even in emergency cases - http://chartsbin.com/view/1887)

Hi all, I would like to share a post from the Facebook group for general discussion and Evan asked me to just post for jumping the 5 karma requirement here - thanks for your help! :)