(www.economist.com)

279 points petethomas | 1 comments | 19 Sep 25 04:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | source

Show context

indolering ◴[20 Sep 25 01:25 UTC] No.45308971[source]▶

I don't think I'm going to take my health advice from an economics magazine that is published by libertarians in the UK (a famously NOT sunny place).

Economists have a habit of wandering off into other fields and misapplying statistical methods developed for economics. See their work in anti-parastic studies and all sorts of gross wannabe sociology research.

I'll wait until Chocrane steps in and says something before rejecting decades of scientific consensus.

replies(1): >>45309162 #

1. maleldil ◴[20 Sep 25 01:40 UTC] No.45309162[source]▶

>>45308971 #

I think this assessment is unfair. The paper [1] is not from economists. The first author is an endocrinologist. The third author is a dermatologist. As for where the authors are from, I don't see why it would matter, as long as their methodology is sound.

However, this doesn't mean one should forget about the current consensus. This is just one paper, and it takes more than that to offset the current knowledge.

[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-025-00743-6

↑

The health benefits of sunlight may outweigh the risk of skin cancer