Read on Twitter
A few weeks ago, I voiced my concern that debates over Covid-19 policy would fall victim to the false trade-off between the economy and the virus.
I now realize there is a corollary to this concern: The dangerous and largely false narrative of economists vs. epidemiologists https://twitter.com/tylercowen/status/1249303883689660418">https://twitter.com/tylercowe...
I now realize there is a corollary to this concern: The dangerous and largely false narrative of economists vs. epidemiologists https://twitter.com/tylercowen/status/1249303883689660418">https://twitter.com/tylercowe...
1. The narrative of econs vs. epis is seductive to the lazy journalist who, instead of educating their readers on the merits of a policy debate, sees their job as keeping score in a Team Econ vs. Team Epi policy deathmatch. This is bad journalism.
2. The narrative has been made all too real by Trump setting up a 2nd Covid-19 task force on the economy.
I fear that the media and Trump will view the decision of when and how to re-open the economy as a battle between economists and health experts.
I fear that the media and Trump will view the decision of when and how to re-open the economy as a battle between economists and health experts.
3. While (hopefully) not intentional, I’m worried that @tylercowen’s post has stoked increased tribalism between economists vs. epidemiologists in the academic Twittersphere if not more broadly.
The false narrative of economists vs. epidemiologists is problematic for at least 2 reasons.
1. It is wrong. On the substantive issue of our time -- how to respond to Covid-19 -- the vast majority of economists agree with epidemiologists.
See the full IGM poll here:
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/
And">https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/p... an excellent @crampell article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/saving-lives-in-the-pandemic-will-also-save-the-economy-in-the-long-run/2020/03/30/dffc211c-72c3-11ea-a9bd-9f8b593300d0_story.html">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/policy-for-the-covid-19-crisis/
And">https://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/p... an excellent @crampell article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/saving-lives-in-the-pandemic-will-also-save-the-economy-in-the-long-run/2020/03/30/dffc211c-72c3-11ea-a9bd-9f8b593300d0_story.html">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...
2. It reduces opportunities for collaboration. Epi has an absolute and comparative advantage in modeling how infection rates will respond to suppression and mitigation measures.
I’m clearly biased but I think econs can provide value-added in discussions of how to provide appropriate incentives for testing companies to build out capacity, and drug companies to develop antivirals and vaccines.
And I think it’s vital for econs to work with epis to design economic support programs for households that complement virus suppression methods rather than pushing against them. The econ vs. epi narrative reduces the scope for this type of teamwork.
We econs have a tendency to “think with our mouths open” and are highly heterogeneous in our opinions. I hope the epis who read @tylercowen’s post don’t paint us with a broad brush and instead reach out to work together when our skills are complementary.
\end
\end
