I'm curious about measuring COVID (and other) risks in microQALYs. For one thing, that could help people communicate about risk tolerance for long COVID.
Using microQUALYs to help people communicate risk tolerance still seems pretty niche. I know of no one other than economist and effective altruist Patrick Julius doing something like tha…
I'm curious about measuring COVID (and other) risks in microQALYs. For one thing, that could help people communicate about risk tolerance for long COVID.
Using microQUALYs to help people communicate risk tolerance still seems pretty niche. I know of no one other than economist and effective altruist Patrick Julius doing something like that. (I suppose others I don't know of do it, too, but it still seems unusual):
I do not think it should be niche. I'm aware people worry QALYs are ageist and ableist, but I have too much personal experience with QALY reduction to fear abuse of QALYs more than inadequate use. Moreover, QALY use could drive home how subjective risk tolerance is, and how much it's influenced by socieoconomic factors. I believe empowering people to estimate and communicate risk in microQALYs could also expand people's empathy:
For example, while anyone with a given medical problem might expect a hit to their microQALYs, those with a reasonable expectation that they won't be believed, won't be treated, or won't be able to afford care if they seek it, can expect a bigger hit. Perhaps this should be obvious, but there are many analytical types (often but not always better-off men) who find it easy to dismiss effects they aren't given a framework for estimating.
I'm curious about measuring COVID (and other) risks in microQALYs. For one thing, that could help people communicate about risk tolerance for long COVID.
Using microQUALYs to help people communicate risk tolerance still seems pretty niche. I know of no one other than economist and effective altruist Patrick Julius doing something like that. (I suppose others I don't know of do it, too, but it still seems unusual):
https://patrickjuli.us/tag/qaly/
I do not think it should be niche. I'm aware people worry QALYs are ageist and ableist, but I have too much personal experience with QALY reduction to fear abuse of QALYs more than inadequate use. Moreover, QALY use could drive home how subjective risk tolerance is, and how much it's influenced by socieoconomic factors. I believe empowering people to estimate and communicate risk in microQALYs could also expand people's empathy:
For example, while anyone with a given medical problem might expect a hit to their microQALYs, those with a reasonable expectation that they won't be believed, won't be treated, or won't be able to afford care if they seek it, can expect a bigger hit. Perhaps this should be obvious, but there are many analytical types (often but not always better-off men) who find it easy to dismiss effects they aren't given a framework for estimating.
Could microQALYs be that framework?
If you are asking me, I'd be happy to have this conversation offline. 😃
I don't know substack, but I have my real and easily searchable full name up here, so find me on LinkedIn or something.