statistical mechanics is basically "lets throw out as much physics as possible because there are too many particles here"
still 100x as rigorous as econ
Let me just stop you right there. This means nothing. Literally nothing. Using the same mathematical tools as statistical mechanics is literally meaningless. This is a stupid ass comment.
Economics technically has portions of micro that requires us to use hamiltonians, however we would not be so bold as to say that they are derived from quantum mechanics. Such a claim is nonsensical. The fact that epemiological models have some nice properties that allow us to use tool sets for systems from SM says nothing about its scientific rigor contra economics.
Using the same mathematical tools as statistical mechanics is not meaningless. It actually follows a very simple (and correct) reasoning. Statistical mechanics was developed to explore the dynamics of situations where it is impossible to take into account (or know) the behaviour of every particle. Epidemiology is about the dynamics of situations where it is impossible to know, predict, or take into account the behaviour of every person - surely we can use similar mathematics.
And the best thing is: you absolutely can, and it works very well.
To describe it as “derived” from statistical dynamics is generous. It really requires some basic ODE theory, essentially. My freshman ODE textbook (DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS, DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS, AND AN INTRODUCTION TO CHAOS by Hirsch, Smale, and Devaney) actually covers what you need for the mathematical foundations of epidemiology. It’s some very basic stuff on differential equations and dynamical systems. The literal only thing something being “derived” from SM tells you is that they use the theory of dynamical systems in their models.
Economists are the only people I found in my upper division math courses. They took linear algebra, real analysis, functional analysis, and even some took the pseudo grad course real analysis class (from Royden). You might find a physicists in your Fourier analysis class or differential geometry class, but economists really do have a rigorous use of mathematics, far beyond any tech an epidemiologist uses. Their basic upper div/grad micro texts are just straight math books (MWG, Game Theory by Maschler et al, etc.). And econometrics is far more sophisticated than epidemiology statistics is.
I don't disagree at all with the mathematics of economists, my issue is that some of their common assumptions seem obviously false - or if not false, at best dubious.
The only other issue that I have with economists is the small subset of them who consistently spout crap about fields they have no real experience in, and which is directly contradictory with the expert opinion. This would be fine if and only if they were actually right, and not just following a common line of reasoning that had been correctly dismissed in the past.
And epidemiology does require some basic ODE stuff, but the deeper side of it is *much* closer to stat mech. At least the mathematical deeper side.
What exactly do you mean? I’ve taken two SM courses. The undergrad one that you take after freshman physics (from Blundell/Blundell) and the “serious” one that used Reichl and Kardar. I straight up don’t believe you if you say that the mathematical sophistication of real world Epidemiology is akin to to latter.
The book I referenced is not basic ODE like engineering freshman learn, it’s basic ODE for a math major. It’s more like as much ODE you can do without being [straight up Analysis](http://cosweb1.fau.edu/~jmirelesjames/ODE_course/lectureNotes_version3.pdf).
The economists who tend to branch out (it’s called “economics imperialism”) tend to do so against social sciences, mostly political science and sociology. In many cases, like the work of Gary Becker, it’s quite successful. Some cases are clearly misguided, and almost absurd like the [theory of rational addiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_addiction), but I don’t think that economists tend to overstep the legitimate boundaries of their theories.
I don’t find many economists speaking about physics, the opposite in fact (econophysics). Quite frankly, as much as I might disagree with the methodology of economics, the fields subjected to their imperialism are magnitudes worse.
It’s an intuitive definition. I mean where the applicability of their methodology is dubious, e.g. the rational theory of addiction. I can’t demarcate it exactly, but “I know it when I see it”.
No I literally don’t know what you mean by the phrase at all, so this doesn’t really help. What are “the boundaries of their theories”. I know what a boundary and a theory are, but not how they fit together, or what an example of a legitimate one would be
Oh, so you’re being a dick? I meant the limits of the applicability of economic models of human behavior. One might call such models “theories”, and describe certain limitations on such theories as being “boundaries”. The use of legitimate as an adjective is informal language requires no description. It’s equivalent roughly to “bona fide”. One might even proceed to be a fucking dickhead and treat a casual reddit comment like some 9th grade English teacher.
One such economic theory is the rational choice theory. It’s perfectly acceptable to say that economists do not in general overstep the legitimate boundaries of such a theory. Now it is obvious that English is not a context free grammar. Legitimate here means what it says, a loose adjective placed in front of “boundaries” to describe a general impression of how economists use their economic theories.
What you actually just said is that you’re a fucking moron or pedantic dick.
“Overstep the legitimate boundaries of their theories” is a perfectly coherent phrase. It means to apply their economic theories in such a fashion as to go beyond the reasonable limitations of their applicability. So why don’t you shut the fuck up and stop being a dick? I’m better at it than you, I promise.
Im not being a dick, it’s an honest question because I didn’t understand your phrasing
I don’t know what the “legitimate bounds of a theory” are either, and I’ve studied economics from both within and without (as in philosophy of science)
I imagine you’re talking about *some* kind of demarcation, where an idea has “legitimate” and “illegitimate” applications but I don’t really have any idea - in spite of this talk about the public choice theory example - what this would entail
However, I would like to thank you for giving me a very clear example of why we won’t be having you around here to chat any longer, it’s nothing personal it’s just that as a mod even though I’m often quite tolerant I tend to think having somebody explode in such an unhinged fashion at such a neutral question is a red flag - it reflects very poorly on whether you can be trusted to hold your temper and ego in check, or trusted more generally
Fair warning, if you go mental trying to litigate this in modmail it will only reaffirm your ban
No, you were being a pedantic dick. The idea that you didn’t understand what a theoretical limitation of a theory is, is absurd. You were clearly being coy to bait this user into saying the most ever so slight insult after trying to explain what they meant to your coy little Socrates routine then using your mod powers like the little bitch you are to ban them.
This was truly a transparently disgraceful little power trip by you. You can go ahead and ban me too if you please.
I don’t remember what were my motivations in this 2-3 year old conversation, and I don’t know why you read “2 years ago” next to my username *in the comment* to which you’re responding and thought “I know, I’m gonna put this guy in his place over something he wrote 2-3 years ago, that’s making a righteous stand for what’s good and true in today’s fucked up world”
Get a fucking grip on reality, please.
Good God you’re a bit mad, aren’t ya?
I’d invite you to consider whether you’d walk up to somebody you hadn’t seen for three years in a coffee shop, whose life you hadn’t been exactly been keeping track of, and demanded that they settle some matter between themselves and a third party you’d only heard about offhand in the meantime
You’d have no idea what had happened to either of these people, whether they’d settled it between themselves, whether they might be completely different people
What’s worse is you’re expecting me to account for things I don’t even remember happening - genuinely an interaction I have no recollection of! - and it’s only me and you who probably have any recollection of it now anywhere in the entire world. Nobody else is coming into this thread and to be honest I’ve got no idea how you found it either. So now you’re coming in making demands of me - two to three years later, I’ve been across Europe, had enormous changes in my life, been to rehab for alcohol addiction and everything (ten months I was in some form of treatment or other, it only ended on Tuesday!) - and all of a sudden I have to account to you and you alone for an argument I got into with a stranger at some unknown time between two and three years ago!
Imagine what that’d be like in some sort of offline context! You’d be staring at the door wondering when the pink elephant was going to walk in with Mr Gorbachev to announce the Soviet Union was back on track after a hazy couple of decades. Please get a bit of a grip on yourself and think next time before you get on your high horse making people account for online spats with no consequence to anybody years after the fact.
I’d like to add that you used the present tense (“the little bitch you are”) to insult me as I am today, based on this one conversation of some years ago. I figure you’ll try to weasel out of that fact somehow, even just in your own head, so I think you should be reminded that your brain is capable of deciding that somebody can be called “a little bitch” now because a minimum of two whole years and a maximum of three whole years ago they got into one internet argument you didn’t like the read of. I would gently suggest that if we’re weighing up “disgraceful” behaviours that that sort of judgemental nonsense is in the running, although I’d prefer to call it “a bit mad” rather than disgraceful in your case.
>I straight up don’t believe you if you say that the mathematical sophistication of real world Epidemiology is akin to to latter
You clearly haven't seen what happens when a mathematical physicist and an epidemiologist write a paper together.
In my experience, most (the vast majority) cases of "econ imperialism" are **very deeply** misguided, especially those in the social sciences. A few succeed, of course, Gary Becker was much more than your average economist though - and may as well be called a social scientist in his own right.
I do not mean to say, after all, that economists can't branch out, nor even that they shouldn't. I only mean to say that many of those who do take the incorrect methodology.
>the fields subjected to their imperialism are magnitudes worse
Perhaps so, but a big [citation needed] applies here (after all, two can play at steelmanning a field). Additionally, that implies nothing about the quality of the economists "contributions" to those fields.
Okay, I found 3 Springer texts on mathematical epidemiology (“An Introduction to MathematicalEpidemiology”, “Mathematical Models In Population Biology and Epidemiology”, “Mathematical Epidemiology”, the latter of which being the most advanced still not requiring anything beyond basic ODE, LA, multivariable calculus, and PDE). I thought I was missing something, but this is literally just mathematical biology.
I’m now confident enough to play a little game. In any published paper, monograph, or textbook on mathematical (or non) epidemiology find any proven theorem, derivation, or any mathematical technique whatsoever. I can guarantee that I can reproduce it in the exact form and specificity used using nothing but a few freshman/sophomore textbooks:
Calculus by Spivak, Calculus Vol 2 by Apostol, Differential Equations by Hirsch, Smale, and Devaney, Differential Equations by Simmons, Linear Algebra by Hoffman and Kunze, and Concepts in Thermal Physics by Blundell and Blundell
If what you say is true then there should be at least one example that I cannot reproduce as such. Given that you are making the positive claim that such papers not only exist, but describe a general trend in the rigor and mathematical sophistication of epidemiology contra economics, it shouldn’t be difficult. In truth, of course, its a relatively trivial outgrowth of mathematical biology, which is itself mostly just an undergraduate applied mathematics.
> In my experience, most (the vast majority) cases of "econ imperialism" are very deeply misguided, especially those in the social sciences.
What subjects do you feel are more adequately explained using it’s native methods than those of science. Sociology borders on pseudoscience (not Comte, Durkheim, etc., mostly those who think that historical materialism and other philosophical astrology is a valid tool of analysis) and political science is no kind of science at all. I agree when it comes to psychology, but that’s about it.
> I do not mean to say, after all, that economists can't branch out, nor even that they shouldn't. I only mean to say that many of those who do take the incorrect methodology.
Could you be more specific? Including behavioral economics, I think economists have shown their subject to be incredibly versatile. I think economics imperialism keeps social scientists honest.
> Perhaps so, but a big [citation needed] applies here (after all, two can play at steelmanning a field). Additionally, that implies nothing about the quality of the economists "contributions" to those fields.
Well there’s [vast evidence](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.29.1.89) that economists believe this to be true (but that’s limited for obvious reasons). 77% of economics graduate students believe that econ is the most scientific social science, for instance.
I'm not playing your game. I have far too much self respect to waste my time like that. This internet argument is not nearly so valuable.
>What subjects do you feel are more adequately explained using it’s native methods than those of science. Sociology borders on pseudoscience (not Comte, Durkheim, etc., mostly those who think that historical materialism and other philosophical astrology is a valid tool of analysis) and political science is no kind of science at all. I agree when it comes to psychology, but that’s about it.
Well done on very quickly proving how little you know. If you enjoy games so much, then put as much time as you wish into finding an irreparable and fundamental hole in historical materialism - do the same for the modern theories of political science if you are especially bored.
>Could you be more specific? Including behavioral economics, I think economists have shown their subject to be incredibly versatile. I think economics imperialism keeps social scientists honest.
They have shown that they are incredibly versatile - but behavioral economics is not "branching out" in the sense I mean it here. If a group of economists were to publish papers in behavioral psychology, that is what I am referring to. They aren't doing economics anymore with that. I have no problem with economists doing things like that, as long as they do it well (as Gary Becker did).
>Well there’s vast evidence that economists believe this to be true (but that’s limited for obvious reasons). 77% of economics graduate students believe that econ is the most scientific social science, for instance.
Well, considering this tendency is resultant from arrogance above all else, your evidence supports my claims far more than it does yours.
Eh...
Mathematical sophistication is really *really* useful for establishing plausible causal relationships and refining things down to the *most* plausible causal relationships
The worst economics around these days (imo) tends to be the stuff that relies purely on a wishy-washy notion of predictive and explanatory power without aspiring to a sophisticated theory
There's zero merit to mathematical sophistication for its own sake. If you can use Bayes nets or whatever to analyse causal relationships, that's great. But the merit is in accurately elucidating those relationships, not in the calculation.
From my understanding one of the best ways to get things open again, would be mass testing. That way you known who you need to quarantine. Of course the President has already said no to that. If he really cared about the population, he would want the asymptomatic carriers to quarantine.
The problem with mass testing is that it's just a single snapshot. Unless you can mass test everyone the same day you would have to continously test (and the shorter interval the better)
It works in the early stages of the epidemic, but there is a reason most governments reduced testing once community transmission was a thing.
> you would have to continously test (and the shorter interval the better)
I mean yeah? Thats what "mass testing" means, do you think south korea is only testing everybody once?
Every time you identify a case via testing, that person, and everyone they've been in contact with, can isolate, effectively shutting that disease vector down. As the WHO said, you need to [test, test, test](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51916707/who-head-our-key-message-is-test-test-test). There is *no downside* to testing as many people as possible, the only reason to cut back is due to shortages or to prioritise who gets tested. And if you do enough testing, you can limit lockdowns to affected areas, as south korea did succesfully.
"There is no downside to mass testing except these downsides" testing everyone requires a significant apparatus (both of tests, personnel, etc.) that are needed elsewhere. Which is why most governments are running some variation of selective testing.
That’s the part that always trips me up. If the only way is to continuously test hundreds of millions people constantly, aren’t we kind of screwed? Trying to source all those reagents and keeping all those lab techs and equipment continuously working for how long seems sort of impractical. It’s easy to say “test test test” but no one ever says how (as far as I can tell). How are they able to test the entire population of even a smallish country like SK so frequently and so reliably?
Korea never tested even close to the entire population, mind. They prioritized tracing and testing people in contact with the disease, which they could do because they acted very quickly when the number of infected was relatively low.
Thanks, that make sense. It sounds like something that for America is a "too late" kind of thing, not a "we should focus on this" kind of thing. The number of infected in the US is high enough that I don't know if it is realistic to do contact tracing and mass testing to the degree being described by /u/titotal. If we had started in January or something, maybe, but now? I just don't understand how it would work logistically.
Social distancing is definitely working, Daily case and death numbers have stopped increasing in pretty much every region that implemented lockdowns or social distancing laws. In australia we're down from 500 cases a day at peak to around 40 now.
You’ll be pleased to hear that in some UK places we are already seeing a drop in admissions to critical care, though nothing is certain and more than one peak nationally is anticipated in the next few weeks
Ha, the good ol coins on a balance math puzzle but with corona.
The way rationalists see themselves is as inventors of clever stuff like this, but obviously approximately none of them would ever come up with something like that.
edit: typo, i meant coins not coils.
How would that tell you who to quarantine? If your goal is to identify which specific individuals need to be quarantined and which don’t, would sampling be enough?
I think they had in mind tracking the spread more coarsely, which is still important and a thing countries like the US and Mexico have really fucked up
Yep, how certain people seem more focused on the economy (or just their own profits, see people who sold stock and did nothing while working for the gov) than saving lives.
See also the image of an economic reporter going 'best day for wallstreet since 1938' while the ticker said 20 (??) million people lost their job. (Not sure if that image was real btw).
1.Epidemiologists release models showing that millions will die if
nothing is done to contain the virus, recommend social distancing
measures to avoid this
3.As a result, vast amounts of social distancing measures are put in
place, limiting the spread of the disease, so that way less people
die
Some wanker economist shows up and claims the epidemiologists are
doomsayers because less people died, why didn’t they model the effect of
epidemiology models in their models?
I mean seriously, how many lives were saved by the “flatten the
curve” epidemiology message while these economists jerked themselves off
over hot takes?
Same happend to the y2k bug.
Or see the ozon layer problem, which is both used as an example of 'see there was nothing to worry about' and 'we dont have to worry about [other environmental problem] because the techonologists will find a way to fix it, like with the ozon layer'.
Someone: Oh look, an economist spends five minutes examining another discipline and concludes that economists could do it better. How quaint and very predictable.
TC: [I think \*your\* GRE reading score wasn't very good.](https://twitter.com/tylercowen/status/1249377506169434113)
On average, what is the political orientation of epidemiologists? And
compared to other academics?
An economist who works at GMU is asking this. The Koch brothers and
the Federalist Society had direct influence on hiring decisions into its
econ department. But I’m sure his hire was meritocratic as hell and had
nothing to do with his political orientation.
Dumb people say stupid things, but if you want real
stupidity you need to look for a smart person.
There are some good points in there but good lord, WHY would he
choose to put that line about GRE (or even meritocracy, although most of
academia has never really been a meritocracy) there? And why
first of all places?
Even discounting the “why is this relevant”/etc. arguments (which are
valid), putting that bit first kinda makes it likely many readers will
not read the others and focus on that one. Jeez.
Now, to close, I have a few rude questions that nobody else seems
willing to ask, and I genuinely do not know the answers to these:
As a class of scientists, how much are epidemiologists paid? Is good
or bad news better for their salaries?
How smart are they? What are their average GRE scores?
Why can’t you just sit the fuck down and admit that you don’t know
enough about epidemiology to review the work on its merits? And no, the
first few paragraphs where you assume that epidemiologists are too dim
to realize that humans change their behavior in response to the
publicizing of a model, don’t count.
It's not just the GRE thing, the dude really insinuated that epidemiologists are dumb, incompetent, nepotists and that their policies are motivated by getting higher wages. You don't get to dodge all of the backlash with "but I'm just asking questions!"
I told you to be specific and give examples
This is an example of a policy failure in a crisis
Why are epidemiologists to blame?
Be specific
Give examples
you realise epidemiologists have lobbied for and designed protocols for pandemic crises? Do you think it’s epidemiologists who are responsible for appointing cabinet ministers?
I think he's so used to grifting economists and 'think-tanks' whispering in the ear of policymakers that he thinks actual scientists have the same amount of influence lol
You have produced (a) an article about Spain failing to support medical services and (b) a tweet about Nick Phin, a govt. official and a public health generalist with specialism in infectious disease, not a specialist in epidemiology, giving advice which runs contrary to the epidemiological specialist, giving bad advice contrary to the epidemiological mainstream and contrary to the evidence *from epidemiology*
In the UK, it was epidemiologists at Imperial College who forced the govt. to change course and institute lockdown
I get the distinct feeling you’re basing your opinion on social media hearsay rather than anything even remotely **approaching** an understanding of the facts
As I have pointed out elsewhere: the numbers being run out of my local hospital (a major London hospital, where my mother is working daily on public health management) have been spot on throughout the crisis. Meanwhile the analyses at Imperial have so far - thankfully - **exaggerated** the scope of the crisis for at least London hospitals.
This is all notwithstanding that as you’ve been told elsewhere, epidemiologists at e.g. the WHO have consistently been pushing for better protocols and warning of serious consequences without them in the next pandemic for *well over a decade*
Now that you’re aware of these facts, it seems remiss of you to not back down and admit you made a bad call about the “epidemiological community” because you had bad information
I wouldn’t mind if you’d said “some epidemiologists” but you didn’t, you laid this at the foot of the profession as a whole
I’d say “no problem” except that you’ve still given no reason to motivate your false belief that the problem is (a) down to epidemiologists more than it is govt. structures in which some epidemiologists work or are complicit, (b) have given exactly one example of an epidemiologist who is complicit in the failures of govt. structure (in Mexico), and (c) have expressed no remorse for your deeply flawed evidentiary basis and reasoning as to your claims, in spite of all the extensive work you’ve thanked me for
Enjoy your ban
> If that's not epidemiologists' job whose is?
In case it's not obvious to you, epidemiologists don't actually make the call to implement their lockdown recommendations. Politicians do.
...and epidemiologists are supposed to just take the money for that out of their own pockets and somehow force the government enact it with their secret "make politicians listen" easy or what?
They've been calling for better protocols and plans for a decade and consistently warned a new epidemic could be disastrous. What do you think they could have done that's in their power?
Because your evidence is incredibly weak and your claims incredibly strong, literally an article about Spain that didn’t discuss epidemiologists and a tweet of a non-epidemiologist giving out bad advice that epidemiologists generally reject
The question isn’t whether the crisis was mishandled, it’s whether you can lay that at the foot of epidemiology as a profession or “community”, for which you have produced no evidence
Man, I don't know how else to get this in your head.
We're not asking for evidence of the crisis being mismanaged. We're all on the same page on that one.
We're saying that's not the epidemologists' fault, because for the most part, they cannot enact policy. And the WHO also cannot enact policy.
One singular newsclip of one WHO spokesperson (not an epidemologist, by the way) saying something wrong at some point simply isn't evidence of anything.
Lol I’m re-reading your “example” and imagining the banks of computers crunching data on every possible variable literally less than a mile away from me right now, with some guy holding a printout and slapping his head like
“Dang we totally forgot about old people!”
Btw, because I actually know something (literally anything) about public health I can tell you that the predictions out of my local NHS Trust’s epidemiological team have been consistently nail on the head accurate so far, while the numbers out of Imperial College for London overshot current trends at least for that hospital. So there’s an actual example you rube, where’s yours?
Reposting my reply from lower down for the benefit of /u/leftrat and anyone else following this conversation. Encourage anybody with a modicum of epistemic decency and/or the capability to self-reflect on what they know in anything approaching an honest fashion to read. This has ended up being the equivalent of reading a particularly bad Facebook commenter insisting they know the first fucking thing about a subject on which they are furiously and relentlessly ignorant.
>I’d say “no problem” except that you’ve still given no reason to motivate your false belief that the problem is (a) down to epidemiologists more than it is govt. structures in which some epidemiologists work or are complicit, (b) have given exactly one example of an epidemiologist who is complicit in the failures of govt. structure (in Mexico), and (c) have expressed no remorse for your deeply flawed evidentiary basis and reasoning as to your claims, in spite of all the extensive work you’ve thanked me for
>Enjoy your ban
I still can’t get over the fact that there is a pro-coronavirus faction in modern politics. It reminds me of the people in horror movies who intentionally try to summon demons or read from the Necromomicon even though they know they will die too.
No horny on main! bonk
From a comment
Compared to economics which is an incredibly precise and hard science like physics and even math.
What does he think epidemiologists are doing these days if not exactly this?
Oh you like making predictive epidemiological simulations? Name 10 popular psychology guys.
lmao he actually literally said that
1.Epidemiologists release models showing that millions will die if nothing is done to contain the virus, recommend social distancing measures to avoid this
3.As a result, vast amounts of social distancing measures are put in place, limiting the spread of the disease, so that way less people die
I mean seriously, how many lives were saved by the “flatten the curve” epidemiology message while these economists jerked themselves off over hot takes?
* how thicc is the Academic Market
quite a lot of the commenters call Cowen a dick btw
Yet another person who can’t accept that, sometimes, you build models that parameterize behavior rather than finding behavioral equilibria.
Ah yes, I definitely wish epidemiologists spent more time incorporating Lucas critique into whatever it is they do, amirite guys.
Also
kill me
An economist who works at GMU is asking this. The Koch brothers and the Federalist Society had direct influence on hiring decisions into its econ department. But I’m sure his hire was meritocratic as hell and had nothing to do with his political orientation.
Dumb people say stupid things, but if you want real stupidity you need to look for a smart person.
There are some good points in there but good lord, WHY would he choose to put that line about GRE (or even meritocracy, although most of academia has never really been a meritocracy) there? And why first of all places?
Even discounting the “why is this relevant”/etc. arguments (which are valid), putting that bit first kinda makes it likely many readers will not read the others and focus on that one. Jeez.
Why can’t you just sit the fuck down and admit that you don’t know enough about epidemiology to review the work on its merits? And no, the first few paragraphs where you assume that epidemiologists are too dim to realize that humans change their behavior in response to the publicizing of a model, don’t count.
[deleted]