This study was released in June, so this may be a repost, but I just found out that one of my friends is a fan of Emily Oster and this is the void I must scream into.

  • Wertheimer [any]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    People I know who have been pregnant, and especially those who have had difficult pregnancies, have found Oster’s book Expecting Better to be a breath of fresh air. But the individualistic approach to personal risk assessment completely falls apart when it comes to contagion, and Oster’s work on Covid has gotten people killed. From a critique published not long after the vaccine rollout:

    Part of the reason that COVID-19 has been such a massive crisis in the United States is a focus on technocratic, individual-level, consumer-choice responses at the expense of centrally planned collective action to reduce transmission (i.e., emphasis on individual choices to wear a mask and “maintain social distance,” instead of short but comprehensive shutdowns of non-essential businesses and activities with social support). This hyper-individualistic focus is common in economics, in epidemiology, and in many of the quantitative social sciences whose tools and expertise have been marshaled to respond to the pandemic—the article is just a particularly extreme example.

    Analogies and metaphors are indispensable, especially in a time of global public health emergency, for communicating science to laypeople and scientists alike. However, as mathematician Norbert Wiener warned, “the price of metaphor is eternal vigilance.” While the unvaccinated-kid-as-vaccinated-grandparent analogy communicates one essential truth (low risk to most individual children), it omits another, equally essential truth—a high risk of transmission to others.

    • schroed4 [he/Him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with you, every individual making individual choices that are best for them breaks down in the context of a global pandemic, 100%. I do think you miss something though. We all can, do, and should apply a scaled up version of the same framework.

      How many additional covid deaths we are willing to tolerate in exchange for something else will vary by person. We vote/act politically to attempt to move towards our preferred outcome. Chosing 0 deaths is likely too costly in other ways to be acceptable for most, and choose to have no restriction with no available protections would likely cause too many deaths to be acceptable to most people. We make similar choices as a society in other contexts. We, for example, have not banned cars dispite the benefits this might bring. Too many people enjoy the benefits of cars too much to accept this trade off.

      I cannot blame her for being focused on individual impacts when she had specialized in this from her books. She did call out other individual risks in making this decision. I do think it could be considered a fair criticism to at least not call out the sociatal risk when talking about individual choices in that article… Just not one where it’s fair to say it makes her so evil Satan would be uncomfortable with her in hell. I think it can be hard for us to remember what we knew and where we were back in March 2021.