This exchange is at the heart of all those really bad takes based on 'economic' arguments that approximately no economist is actually making. Moral hazard is a thing, but it's not a covid-19 thing. 1/

. @andrew_leach puts his finger on the crucial point: as far as public policy goes, this is not a repeated game. You can worry about setting bad incentives for bad things that occur relatively frequently and predictably: floods, winters, etc. 2/

The idea that we should hold back and let people suffer the consequences of a once-a-century event so that they know better the next time is the heart of all cruel covid-19 takes. 3/

This mis-application of the moral hazard argument is also made made by those objecting to income support for those affected by the pandemic. 4/

It says a lot - and nothing good - about Professor Attaran's analytical skills that he dismissed Andrew's point because it had a typo. 5/

Economists sometimes get flak for pointing out moral hazard arguments when we think they should be made.

But there are times they shouldn't be made, and this is one of them. 6/6