Varsha Venugopal

Yeah.

Yeah.

We borrowed some of their figures and adapted it by plugging the relevant data for our own context.

By doing that, we estimate we can save one life for roughly every 100 extra children vaccinated.

So vaccinating 60 extra children, we save 0.6 statistical lives.

Having said that, though, I realize we plugged into a previous model, which has recently changed in the GiveWell page.

So at that time, I think it's a 2017 model, we could save a child's life for maybe something in the region of $1,700.

But I see the GiveWell top charities now are somewhere between $3,000 to $5,000 for every additional child's life saved.

So we need to go back and question that.

That sounds reasonable, though now having the GiveWell model and we see that as the gold standard, we would rather follow that.

On how the money gets spent on the program, given the early stage we are at, the funds that we raise now will...

play an important role in bringing down this cost per life saved for future work.

And we see three main ways of doing that.

So one is the straightforward economies of scale.

You add an additional district, it brings down the overall cost if we are not adding more office size, for instance.

The other is process improvement.

So for instance, we are currently hiring for a tech role, which we think...

for instance, can bring through some exponential increases in our efficiencies.

There are also so many ways we are iterating our nomination survey and recruitment survey, which would allow for increased efficiencies.

And the final is this process innovation, which is, I guess, still an area we need to explore further.