We provide an initial look at our follow up study on the impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) on U.S. commercial fisheries. Earlier work found that In the years immediately preceding the passage of the ACA, North Carolina’s commercial fishermen were more likely to purchase health insurance coverage on the private market if they worked in a more dangerous environment or were more highly vested in fishing. Our preliminary results show that North Carolina’s commercial fishermen are indeed purchasing health insurance through the ACA in significant numbers. Insurance coverage has risen overall, although some fishermen are still choosing to remain uninsured. We provide early estimates on the size of the ACA subsidies and changes in fishing behavior and investment.
Tired of presidential politics? Here's a local (Florida) issue that could have interesting national and international impacts:
The main focus of this election has been the presidential race, but so many other things will be on the ballot Nov. 8. In the Florida Keys, local voters will be asked whether they are in favor of releasing genetically modified mosquitoes somewhere on the islands as part of an experiment that ultimately aims to reduce the transmission of mosquito-borne diseases like dengue and Zika.
Many locals are opposed to the research and have several reasons for not wanting to be exposed to the risk of a new technology: Current methods for mosquito control are working relatively well, and it’s not clear whether the genetically modified mosquitoes will be able to reduce disease, especially in the short term. People in favor of the research point to the large quantity of insecticide currently being used to keep mosquitoes at bay and the growing problem of insecticide-resistant mosquitoes as some of the reasons that new technology is necessary. The vote brings up a lot of big questions about how a society should deal with risk, particularly when it comes to new technology and public health.
I know I used to have a policy against talking politics on this blog, but times change, I change, and if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!
This topic, after two and a half hours of the debate, was by far the most significant, and undoubtedly the most disappointing moment of the evening.
I must begin with this: Vaccines do not cause autism. There is no basis in science at all for this. The journal piece that began this nonsense years ago was retracted. All similar studies have been thoroughly discredited.
The following medical groups agree that there is no link between vaccines and autism: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization and the Institute of Medicine. Whether alone or grouped together (such as Measles Mumps and Rubella), vaccines don't cause autism. The medical community is clear.
Jake Tapper, the CNN debate moderator, noted that Trump has repeatedly linked vaccines to autism. Trump's response was that grouping them together (MMR for example) is a cause.
His proof: A testimonial. His words were "we've had so many instances, people that work for me." He then talked about a child who recently was vaccinated, then got sick, and is now autistic. Trump claimed that if vaccines were spread out, a little at a time, "I think you're going to see a big impact on autism."
Such an assertion is not only without merit, but potentially very harmful. The notion that grouping them together may be a "problem" leads to a general mistrust of vaccinations. It's dangerous misinformation. Plus, waiting is dangerous. These infectious diseases cause pneumonia, brain damage, deafness, infertility and even death. That's why we don't wait. That's why we vaccinate children.
And the campaign is clearly working: The ALS Association told Fox Boston that it has raised $1.35 million in the past two weeks. It raised just $22,000 in the same period last year.
That’s welcome news for the 12,000 Americans who have the disease, which is devastating and ultimately fatal, and for their families and future generations.
Now before I go much further, I will admit that we have a family friend (father of our kids' friends) who has been battling ALS for the past three years and I may not be fully objective when it comes to my views below, but anyway, if the campaign is working so well, then WHY DOES WILL OREMUS SPEND THE REST OF HIS ARTICLE CRITICIZING THE ICE BUCKET CHALLENGE?
Yet it’s hard to shake the feeling that, for most of the people posting ice bucket videos of themselves on Facebook, Vine, and Instagram, the charity part remains a postscript. Remember, the way the challenge is set up, the ice-drenching is the alternative to contributing actual money. Some of the people issuing the challenges have tweaked the rules by asking people to contribute $10 even if they do soak themselves. Even so, a lot of the participants are probably spending more money on bagged ice than on ALS research.
Yes, the challenge is a bit odd...either pour cold water on your head, or donate money. But as Will pointed out in the previous paragraph, people ARE donating.
So why be cynical Will?
But Will's idiocy doesn't end with this slight critique...he goes on:
As for “raising awareness,” few of the videos I’ve seen contain any substantive information about the disease, why the money is needed, or how it will be used. More than anything else, the ice bucket videos feel like an exercise in raising awareness of one’s own zaniness, altruism, and/or attractiveness in a wet T-shirt.
Will, Will, Will, we live in a time when messages have to be conveyed in less than 6 seconds and less than 140 characters. Not a lot of information can be conveyed in that time. But we also live in a time when the most extraordinary invention ever is available, in our hands, at all times: GOOGLE.
Ever heard of it?
Now let me demonstrate how GOOGLE might actually be helping with the awareness component you seem so concerned about. Here is a Facebook post from a family member:
I saw somebody else post the question: What is ALS? Do you know? There is a huge effort to "raise awareness" and I've seen a hundred friends dump ice water on themselves in the name of ALS awareness and I just had to look it up. I knew it was Lou Gehrig's disease, but nothing more. Did you know anything more than the ball player who had it? I'm supposed to dump water on myself soon. Thought I should look it up.
See how that works Will? The poster was only slightly aware of ALS. He was challenged to dump water on himself. He wondered why? He Googled ALS. Now he is MORE AWARE!
Amazing.
So what, oh wise-Will, do you propose is a better way to raise awareness?
That’s why I’m proposing what is sure to be an unpopular alternative to the #icebucketchallenge. It’s called the no ice bucket challenge, and it works like this:
Do not fetch a bucket, fill it with ice, or dump it on your head.
Do not film yourself or post anything on social media.
Just donate the damn money, whether to the ALS Association or to some other charity of your choice. And if it’s an organization you really believe in, feel free to politely encourage your friends and family to do the same.
BRILLIANT! Your solution Will is to DO NOTHING other than what was being done before? Hope people become magically aware? I'm pretty sure the folks who have been trying to raise awareness about ALS for the past 75 years are pretty happy with how this campaign is working. It's the best thing that has happened for their cause since Lou Gehrig declared himself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.
Donations follow awareness.
Research follows donations.
Progress follows research.
So Will, here is my suggestion for how you can help raise awareness for ALS.
SHUT UP.
No seriously, just shut up.
It makes no sense, for idiots like you to weigh in. Why criticize something that clearly has had a positive impact and at worst a campaign to which others are indifferent? If you don't want to support the cause, don't. That's your choice. Just as it is the choice of 322,860 people and counting to use #ALSICEBUCKETCHALLENGE on Instagram to post videos of themselves being naive enough to participate in such a collosal waste of time (SARC).
Even if only a tiny fraction of those posters are now more aware, well, I think the conclusion is obvious.
I know this isn't exactly environmental, but a couple of side interests of mine have been 1) the ability of health fads and information conveyance (or misinformation) to affect behavior, and 2) using science for mythbusting. Here's a case where anomalous scientific findings--gluten causes intestinal issues in some non-celiac patients--helped establish a multi-billion dollar industry and convince thousands upon thousands that they are gluten-sensitive. So what happens now when the same scientist who established gluten sensitivity, follows up with two, more rigorous, studies and finds that non-celiac gluten sensitivity, well, doesn't exist.
In one of the best examples of science working, a researcher who provided key evidence of (non-celiac disease) gluten sensitivity recently published follow-up papers that show the opposite.
So what will happen when those 17% of adults who don't have celiac disease read this:
For a follow-up paper [by the same authors who wrote the original paper that found gluten sensitiveity existed], 37 self-identified gluten-sensitive patients were tested...
The subjects cycled through high-gluten, low-gluten, and no-gluten (placebo) diets, without knowing which diet plan they were on at any given time. In the end, all of the treatment diets — even the placebo diet — caused pain, bloating, nausea, and gas to a similar degree. It didn't matter if the diet contained gluten. (Read more about the study.)
In other words, subjects who THOUGHT they were gluten sensitive had the same belly troubles, even if their diet contained no gluten. Consumer behavior is driven by perception.
So what happens now? My guess, good science will take a long time to prevail. Now that gluten sensitivity is entrenched as a consumer reality, it will take a long time for the myth to disipate in the market.
When I begin to discuss externalities in my Principles of Economics and my Environmental Economics classes, I usually use vaccinations as an example of a positive consumption externality. The economic issue of vaccination is not so much whether you are preventing illness in your own child by having him or her vaccinated, but rather are you taking into account the full social costs of not getting vaccinated when choosing whehter to vaccinate your own child. That is, by not getting vaccinated, not only do you take a chance of your own child contracting a disease, but you increase the probability that others will contract the disease as well. So by having your child vaccinated you provide external benefits that don't enter your own cost/benefit calculation. The result is social underprovision of vaccinations and socially inefficient levels of disease.
“I think because [the new drugs would be] attacking such a vast area of the organism, the potential for mutation might be slowed, but I don’t think we could ever say it won’t evolve,” [Mark Fielder, professor of microbiology at Kingston University] said. “It is another step forward, another piece in our armoury to overcome the organisms. The more we understand, the better chance we have.”
*It's not. It's the reality of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
I'm picturing Morgan Freeman as the President, delivering the slightly optimistic news before the organism mutates again and peoples' eyes start popping out.
At the least, I'm a science project. From the inbox:
One of our staff pharmacists will be giving a talk on insomnia to a group of regional health care providers in early October. She would like to use the image of your actigraphy report on your website at: http://www.env-econ.net/2013/01/results-from-my-actigraphy-report.html. The talk is educational; it is a non-commercial event; the graph is the only part of the website being requested. We are a nonprofit clinic system in [location]. I anticipate approximately 75 or so participants. How may we obtain permission?