ArticleFrontiers in epidemiology2024
The impact of cognitive bias about infectious diseases on social well-being.
Article in Frontiers in epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We investigate the relationship between bias, that is, cognitive distortions about the severity of infectious disease and social well-being. Materials and Methods: First, we establish empirically the existence of bias and analyze some of its causes; specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, we derive an integrated economic-epidemiological differential equation model from an agent-based model that combines myopic rational choice with infectious disease dynamics. Third, we characterize axiomatically a model of an ethical, impartial, eudaemonistic and individualist observer. We prove that such an observer evaluates the state of society (social welfare or social well-being) according to the utilitarian principle. Results: We show numerically that while increased risk-perception indeed improves epidemiological outcomes such as peak of infections and total incidence, the impact on social well-being is ambiguous. Discussion: This result urges to look beyond cases and deaths. We also discuss problematic aspects of the simplified utilitarian principle. Conclusion: Finally, we point out three possible future research directions and highlight some critical issues that arise in the normative direction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.