I’m not a stan for Emily Oster, but I agree with a lot of what’s she said, and that protean article is especially stupid. One of the article’s primary criticisms is that EO adopts cost-benefit analysis that rejects the precautionary principle. This complaint is completely ridiculous in the context of school closings because both sides have potentially very large costs! School closings would very obviously lead to a decline in student learning. And keeping schools open would very obviously allow school-based transmission. [I don’t know the extent to which school-based transmission would be greater than the transmission that would occur outside of school if schools were closed. But assume that school openings would cause a net increase in virus transmission, so it represents a cost to opening.]
Why would a “precautionary principle” approach be different from a cost-benefit approach? I guess a precautionary principle approach would say, simultaneously:
We should be really cautious before we take any actions that are likely to cause material harm to children’s learning.
We should be really cautious before we take any actions that would likely increase virus spread.
But those two are obviously in conflict, so you have to make an assessment about which goal is more important, and how to weigh the two goals. That’s literally cost-benefit analysis! This critique makes no sense at all.
It also focuses on EO’s statement about vaccines for 4-year olds, as if that was a radical opinion, rather than being consistent with the FDA’s official position. Does the precautionary principle lead to approving vaccines for kids regardless of the balance between efficacy and safety? The entire article is bizarre.
Everyone was willing to talk about the costs of distance learning. But that’s a talk that has to happen in the context of actual facts and not corporate think-tank nonsense about kids magically not spreading COVID to their grandparents.
Yes, that’s the rub. The chance of kids dying in school does not really fit into a public policy discussion (cf school shootings). So “fact free” viewpoints are espoused and anybody can do so (cf Emily Oster).
I disagree with that. Emily Oster’s ideas or policy pushes weren’t fact free. She used, or attempted to use studies, white papers, etc to prove her thesis because those are the currency in use in upper class technocracy. That’s the main thrust of the complaint, that she was intentionally being shoddy with the actual data to get to the conclusion she and a lot of people wanted.
Exactly. She was an economist who the media decided was credible on this subject almost entirely because she was promoting an agenda that would greatly benefit our wealthy overlords.
This seemed pretty obvious at the time imo, but it’s even more so now that the financial backing has come out.
Just talked with my mechanic. He and his adult son both had serious Covid last fall. They even gave the son last rites. Both OK now. Both had mRNA 2 doses with appointments the next week for boosters. Both doing ok now. The owner is prolly about 70 and is def not overweight. The son is prolly mid 30s. Big guy but certainly not obese. Assume neither would have made it without their original vaccinations. They got antibodies as well. Since the son got last rites, assume he was on a vent?
Welp, I FAAFO. Went back to running pub pool tournaments on Thursdays, and I seem to have caught a touch of the 'roney on St. Patrick’s day. Stupid green beer. Pretty mild as of yet, the inconvenience is the worst part so far.
Lost the link but another article out there about how to explain the low deaths in Africa when it’s clearly the Trump model of no tests no cases no deaths attributed.
It’s weird that not even some garbage right wing outlet like OANN has the courage to air a report about these hundreds of athletes dying during sporting events and geniuses like John Stockton and Herschel Walker have to learn about it from an email chain or something.
Plus I learn that Karl Malone had a child by a 13 year old and refused to pay child support, even though paternity was proven and support was ordered. Let alone stat rape.
Well, the vast majority of them are ultra competitive toxic masculinity types to start. That’s a damned good foundation to build a deplorable belief system on. Combine that with becoming a millionaire at 25 or 30 and your are almost an optimal candidate to adopt the worst of American right wing beliefs.
