-
-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe we spent too much time teaching people about unintended consequences and we need to point out that most of the time the consequences are intended.
-
Unintended consequences can be very important, but you need to have some common sense of when they can possibly be strong enough to overtake the big first order effects and backfire. It cannot be the default.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
At its core, econ theory putting a lot of faith to individual optimization to accurate information vs. public health viewing individuals as a potential Problem is a pretty big gap
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Don't think this has a behavioral motivation, though. A lot of restrictions for going anywhere require you to either be vaccinated OR provide a recent test result. If you have to pay for the test out of your own pocket it's cheaper to just get the vaccine.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Circa feb/march 2020 my belief was that "wear masks" was the clearly correct decision but there was a non-trivial chance that they were actually net negative. The particular problem is that we didn't really know how effective they actually were.
-
The Peltzmann effect can be a different animal if people can *incorrectly* compensate for a *perceived* but not real risk reduction.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
i found it bizarre that there was Peltzman Effect speculation about masks in the U.S. when there's years of mask use data in East Asia – data that were then dismissed due to "cultural differences". I've seen anti-maskers weaponize Peltzman too
-
There IS a cultural difference: it's taboo to be openly stupid about community health problems.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.