5-11 year olds will likely soon be eligible to get vaccinated. This is great news!
But some like @MonicaGandhi9 are championing an end to school masking once this happens.
The logic is that ending mask rules promotes vaccination.
But is that supported by any evidence? 1/
-
Show this thread
-
In May,
@CDCDirector (despite objections from CDC staff) relaxed mask guidance to incentivize vaccine uptake. Countless state/local govs and venues ended mask rules. Mask use fell but no increase in vaccine uptake happened, likely leading to or worsening the Delta surge. 2/pic.twitter.com/elKCF1K5BF
5 replies 33 retweets 166 likesShow this thread -
I don't get the logic or the empirical basis of these claims, on either end. "If we recommend masks they won't wash their hands." "If we don't recommend masks, they will get vaccinated." Neither claim fits what we know of human behavior, or has empirical support that I can see.
1 reply 2 retweets 13 likes -
Absolutely. It also misunderstands masking benefits/acceptability through an individualistic lens. Masks are an environmental intervention as much as a personal protective ones. Mask acceptability is contingent on messaging from leaders and on mask use by those around them.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
When I looked at recent research (such as it is) on this, I found a sizable group masking up as part of their vaccine avoidance (which happens for a multitude of reasons). I also think most anyone motivated to get vaccinated so as to take off masks has been vaccinated—in the US.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @AndrewMakeTweet and
The CDC dropping of masking guidance was expected to make the already begrudgingly-masked stop masking and not likely affect vaccine uptake as a factor. I wrote it at the time, too, since not rocket science here on human behavior.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @AndrewMakeTweet and
I think arguments for timing of dropping mask requirements (Fine topic! It is a valid discussion!) need to *stand alone* on their own, not based on these, imo, clearly unsupported projections about human incentives and behaviors.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @AndrewMakeTweet and
My suspicion is that behavioral econ/psych became more popular in the past decades, so now there’s bias to look for behavioral trade offs where there are none.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nickshort3000 @AndrewMakeTweet and
I don't understand the need for behavioral economics for these questions. First, this isn't an auction or anything like that. Two, behavioral economics, as a field, likes the counterintuitive "look at these second-order effect" thing. That is almost never a *real* thing though.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @nickshort3000 and
Three, we have perfectly reasonable ways of thinking about and researching these questions within the conceptual toolkit of existing and actually appropriate fields like sociology or social-psychology. Why go to a field that has little to do with the question?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Finally—sociology etc. are not immune to this—but most answers to such questions are not that exciting, but that is not the current academic or public incentive system. "Suprise!" is a more interesting answer, but should be assumed wrong unless really bolstered by future work.
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.