An incredible read as usual!

BTW, thanks for all your guidance about a decade ago on a study we were doing on NFL players. You probably don't remember, but you pointed us towards profootballreference.com, which was a game changer. (Other medical researchers are using these data, too!)

I love the point about conplementarities between basic income and JG - I was talking to a director of a successful job reskilling program who made the same point (based on experiences with workers). Do you see that impacts of JG are increasing in baseline income in your work?

Finding #1: Most respondents were comfortable with the use of race in at least some circumstances.

This highlights a gap between calls to eliminate uses of race in medicine and public opinion.

My favorite part of this paper is the heterogeneous treatment effects by cancer survival probability. Really helps stick the mechanism.

Progress is relative. I have a few more words than I did last month :)

In other words, I think comparing observed health outcomes Y between group A and group B creates problems. Would be better to compare counterfactual health outcomes YA0 (outcomes for group A under unjust exposure/policy regime) and YA1 (outcomes for group A under more just exposure/policy regime).

Oh interesting - I actually interpreted that as relative to what we would expect under "just" conditions rather than an intergroup difference.

But then again, I have read your book and no longer think in terms of group disparities as a result!

They touch on this?

"This means that the very notion of studying inequities embeds 2 constructs: a mathematical one (ie, inequality), and one rooted in values (ie, an understanding that there are structural forces that impede the achievement of equality and that can, and should, be remediated)."

Yes - I love you guys for doing that.

Hard to know what to do with many estimands when there is no clear theory of justice.

I wrote about this clumsily some years back: jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

I hope that this piece can help bring into the open a discussion about a better way forward.

I've had so many conversations with people who are worried about the direction of #healthequity research -- the lack of rigor, the lack of theory, and overstatement of findings.

Worse yet is the defiant attitude by some that any effort to push on nuance or causality undermines the project.

This is really sad. Emmanuel is fantastic. I am sure the others who were also laid off are, too.

Totally agree. The papers we picked are good for that reason - really clear about assumptions and what one can and can't say.

Thanks Zaven!