Economists, at conferences, wearing masks
Should economists be required to wear masks at conferences?
We are now at that time in the pandemic where economists are starting to disagree with one another just like they were pre-pandemic. But as the argument is instructive, I thought I would evaluate the debate here.
Last week, the American Economic Association sent out an email about its January conference (to be held, in-person, in New Orleans — and yes there had already been a debate about that location post-Dobbs but it has been resolved with remote option requests). That email contained the following:
Let me first tell you my reaction in the interest of transparency. It was this: “Oh no, not another bloody conference wearing bloody masks where I fall asleep because I’m breathing more CO2 and I can’t understand what anyone is saying because I normally lip-read too much and I have even more trouble recognising people so I have to refer to everyone as ‘mate’. I hate f’king masks!”
My own personal views regarding masks on the table, let’s look at the policy. There are good things about the policy.
It is not performative. They want KN-95 masks or better and not just any old face covering like they do on planes. These masks really do work to prevent spread.
They are encouraging people to get tested. This is a good thing for people to do and to do before they get on a plane to come to the conference.
Anyone who has health concerns will be accommodated, at least as a speaker.
Now let’s look at the objections. They are articulated by Tyler Cowen:
Even the Arlington County Public Library is doing better than that. Did someone do a cost-benefit analysis? If so, may I see it? And if this is optimal, why are no private American businesses following suit? (Can you name one, outside of some health care settings?) How far do you have to go to find an institution, profit or non-profit, doing the same?
How about allowing a members’ vote on this? Or should I just be happy that the AEA is making itself irrelevant at such a rapid pace? It is remarkable the speed at which the economics profession isn’t really about economics any more.
Not being familiar with the Arlington County Public Library, I looked up their website (which is very nice, by the way). Here is what I found:
They also give away rapid tests which is good community practice.
Faced with these two approaches, Cowen asks for a cost-benefit analysis. He is asking it of the AEA, but the Arlington Public Library surely shouldn’t be off the hook on that score either. But Cowen then falls back on the, if private businesses aren’t doing it, surely that cost-benefit analysis comes out against a mask mandate.
Now the last two economics conferences I went to (the NBER Summer Institute, which had a performative mask mandate only on conference sessions — not meals, halls etc — and the ACCC Regulatory Conference in Brisbane, which had a KN-95 mandate and handed them out — but again not at meals, etc) had mask mandates. But they weren’t what Cowen regards as private — even though the NBER is not a government organisation just like the AEA. Cowen asks how far we have to go to find a conference with a mask mandate. Not far, it turns out. Here is ComicCon held in July in San Diego.
I don’t think those folks are the sort who impose a mandate lightly, but there it is. Presumably, a Mandalorian helmet would count, of course.
In the end, the counter-argument to a mask mandate is whether it should be left to individual choice. If you are of a more libertarian persuasion, that isn’t surprising. But this issue is not a purely individual issue.
How to make a community decision
Cowen suggests that members should be allowed a vote on this. I don’t know what the outcome of that vote would be, but the AEA leadership was chosen by an election (albeit with some Soviet vibes), and it was their job to make these decisions. The point being, that we can’t vote on everything and conference operations is surely something that we expect our leadership to just handle.
What about the science?
I believe that most of the objections at the moment are about the mask mandate. If we do some forecasting, Covid is likely to be at another peak just after Christmas when the AEA conference is being held. Also, by that time, there is a good chance any boosters we have would be waning, so the AEA meetings could easily be a big super-spreader event. What is the probability? Maybe 10 percent or more? It is hard to know. But it surely isn’t unscientific to presume there is a risk. Indeed, if not Covid, there is the flu as well. So it is hard to see the KN-95 mask mandate as egregious. Sensible following the science is consistent with that type of policy.
In addition, what about the alternative of “testing to enter”? I would favour that, but it involves a whole infrastructure to monitor and administer that a conference with 20,000 or something attendees spread over multiple hotels can’t easily spin up. It is easier to just see if people are wearing masks.
The trickier bit is the vaccine mandate. The public good rationale for imposing a mandate arises when vaccines help prevent the spread of disease, not simply preventing serious versions of it. Taking a vaccine to lower your risk of getting sick is an individual decision. Taking one to lower others’ risk is a social one.
But herein lies the issue. I don’t think that one course of a Covid vaccine plus a single booster (potentially taken 18 months earlier) comes anywhere near satisfying the public good rationale. Based on last year’s knowledge and variants, it would have. But this year, the case isn’t there.
Summary
There’s too much performative whining going on — including by me. What the AEA is doing makes sense and even makes sense when compared with the Arlington Public Library. It isn’t anti-science for masks but is potentially misplaced for vaccines. But I suspect that even the vaccine mandate will end up being light touch as people come in from all around the world to attend.