Whenever people say, "Lyman, OBVIOUSLy demographers understand there won't be a pandemic baby boom!"

I mean, UNFPA official outlets are promoting a baby boom narrative! philippines.unfpa.org/en/news/signif…
At the release for UNFPA's big global annual report in the Philippines, the media highlight was about how COVID-19 will cause a huge rise (25%!) in unintended pregnancies in the Philippines.

I haven't been able to figure out what that is based on in terms of data.
At about 26 minutes here the explanation starts. It's based papers published by Guttmacher and JHU, and back-of-the-envelope estimates of changes in contraception.
Underlying Guttmacher paper is here.

They say that a "conservative" estimate of COVID's effect, a 10% decline in contraceptive use, will lead to **15 million** more births globally.

That's like a 12% increase in total global fertility.
If you think the elasticity of births globally vs. short-run modern contraceptive usage is ***1.2*** then you may be in need of a biology lesson.
They're literally forecasting that a third of women nudged off of modern contraception will conceive children they would not have otherwise.

A third of reproductive-age women not using contraceptives normally do not conceive in a given 6 month period!
In a given *year*, in countries with *extremely high* birth rates like Burkina Faso, about 30% of non-pregnant, non-contracepting women will conceive a child.

So in, say, a 6-month period, you'd expect *half* that number.
But that's in Burkina Faso. In the Philippines, in the 2017 DHS, it looks like about ***13%*** of non-pregnant, non-contracepting, prime-age women would get pregnant in a given year. So about 6-7% in a given 6-month period.
So you'd expect a 10% reduction in contraception to shift 10% of the current contraceptors to non-contraception over a 6-month period, the share of non-contraceptors conceiving rises from about 13.4% to about 14%.
For that to be a 42% increase in unintended fertility as UNFPA says for the Philippines, you'd have to assume that previously unintended pregnancy made up just 9% of all pregnancies. In reality, Guttmacher reports that ***54%*** of pregnancies in the Philippines are unintended.
So they've probably *dramatically* overestimated these effects.
In sum:

Folks, it is simply not the case that one out of every three women who can't access contraception for a few weeks or months will conceive in that timeframe. Nope. Not reality.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Lyman Stone 石來民

Lyman Stone 石來民 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @lymanstoneky

13 Oct
This is a good question! Does anyone have comparable data on number of polling places and voting lines across countries?
American turnout for elections is comparatively LOW, yet we appear to have uniquely long lines and delays.

What’s going on?

Are the delays the cause of the low turnout? Unrelated? What causes them? Fewer polling stations? More ballot items to consider?
Like do other countries just have 5x as many polling sites??
Read 5 tweets
13 Oct
right, because overnight you'd just whip out all those voting machines and hire all those extra workers, that's totally a thing which would happen
Folks, we don't know how many people showed up to vote early in Georgia (or any other state).

If the number who showed up was 5x Day 1 of early voting in previous years, that's not the election officials' fault!
THE WHOLE POINT of early voting is to smooth out when voting occurs! The date of the election didn't move up to October 12th.

There is no principle which would require Georgia to accommodate *any unlimited number* of people who wanted to vote on October 12th.
Read 12 tweets
13 Oct
They’re so opposed to early voting that they are allowing people to vote a month before the election???
The problem with this whole line of reasoning is that if lines are long today people can come back tomorrow

Or the next day

Or the next

Or the next

And so on

For an entire month.
Early voting wasn't an option *at all* a few decades ago, and yet.... that was not voter suppression!

You now have WEEKS in which to vote!

There's a line?

Boo hoo. Try again next week.
Read 26 tweets
12 Oct
I keep Lutheran in my bio mostly because it’s true but also a little bit because it helps ID people who are paid trolls who just grab random words out of your bio to use as pejoratives.
Lutherans do not have any meaningful political or ideological brand, globally or domestically. Indeed being milquetoast is practically the Lutheran political creed. And yet these trolls come out of the woodwork being like “WELL OF COURSE HE’S LUTHERAN”
If in your first interaction with a person on this hellsite you reference any part of their listed bio 99% of the time it means you’re the bad guy.
Read 6 tweets
11 Oct
No— having every individual work in the marketplace is neither necessary nor desirable. We should not treat isolated individual career achievement as the end-all of mobility.

Just adjust for household size.
Also, for a lot of people, “I make more income but whereas my parents basically achieved their family goals, but I didn’t” doesn’t feel like upward mobility. Key to recognize marriage isn’t just a PATH TO upward mobility, marriage IS upward mobility for many people!
Pretty much any welfare function will treat total welfare as some function of leisure time and other variables so we should not prima facie assume differences in labor force participation we know are culturally related are necessarily “lack of mobility.”
Read 8 tweets
28 Sep
I think it's possible to say both "the US response has been very bad" and also "Progressives have been leaping at any comparison to make the US look bad because they basically feel embarrassed about America anyways and confirmation bias is strong."
It is in fact possible that the US response has been worse than it should have been and also that the European response has been worse than it should have been, and that pretty much "the response" was determined by..... let's say March 1.
Once the disease was widespread in many countries, as it clearly was by early March, it's not clear how much influence governments could really wield in terms of preventing a major death spike.
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!