In the U.S., you are legally permitted to sell your blood plasma for money, but it's called "donation".
In recent years, the numbers of places set up for donations has skyrocketed, and the amount they're compensating donors has followed suit.
Let's dig in.
Most of the visitors to these donation centers are highly local (A)
People are also more likely to visit donation centers in census block groups (CBGs) that are marked by poverty (B)
Why?
In surveys, donating plasma is predicted by being poor, Black, male, married, having kids, being a student, etc.
In short, people who could really use an extra $150 twice a week for a minimal inconvenience are more likely to donate.
We know this is true because we also have survey data indicating people's stated reasons for donating. Few people are donating altruistically. The top categories by far are about money!
Take a look:
Now, before getting to the juicy result, I want to show one more thing: the impact of COVID stimulus checks on plasma donations.
When the checks went out, the number of visits to plasma donation centers cratered. Donations plummeted because people had the cash they needed.
Now here's the kicker: When plasma donation centers open up, local inquiries into predatory payday and installment loans falls off.
People are seeking credit and donating blood might be how they get it.
If we stratify these trends by age, we see that those with ages less than or equal to 35 - the less well-established - are the ones deciding to use blood plasma donations to offset the need for quick, dangerously high-interest cash, not those greater than 35 years old.
When you look at payday transactions rather than inquiries alone, you get the same picture, albeit with more noise.
Young people really do seem to be defraying the need for credit by selling (sorry, donating!) their blood plasma.
The reasons people sell their are also, evidently, not just to cover essentials.
One of the clearest-cut impacts is that entertainment establishments see an increase in visits after blood plasma donation centers open up.
That last part clarifies something: people would prefer not to get risky, high-interest loans, and they really want a little bit of extra cash. So while they will seek out those loans if push comes to shove, they're more likely to frivolously pursue blood donation.
And that's good! We need blood plasma donations, so if paying people a bit of money makes that possible, so be it.
If we take away that possibility, we can also see that it would make people's lives worse.
How far can we take this? Maybe we can learn from Iran.
In the U.S., about 0.5-1% of the federal budget goes to dialysis:
In Iran, there is a legal, regulated market in selling kidneys and it's such a good deal that the government even pays for the operations. It beats paying for dialysis!
People are more than willing to sell their bodies in different ways that help their fellow citizens, from selling their blood plasma to pawning off a kidney.
Given so many people want to do that, and so many people would benefit from it, the question is, why not?
Frankly, I think we should just do it. The blood plasma donation model has been such a success and it's more than evident that organ payments could be too.
The fact that the most significant crime, socially, is violent crime, and it's not really driven by the economy should change the way we see and talk about crime.
Despite strong results, it doesn't seem to have permeated the public discourse.
There was a point in time when London shut down 70% of its police stations as part of a series of austerity cuts.
That was a bad idea🧵
Background:
A 2010 report from the British government led to a 29% budget cut for London's police.
In response, the mayor figured cutting down police stations and redistributing the frontline officers across the remainder could save money while achieving similar results.
The police stations the mayor's office decided to shut down were fairly geographically equally distributed in London, and they respected local crime trends.
It's therefore plausible that the remaining stations could make up for the absence of the ones that were shut down.
If I want to do a study on Holocaust survivors and I go and seek out people who survived it, I am looking for a select sample.
If, instead, I look in datasets that were sampled without respect to Holocaust survival and find survivors, my sample is nonselect.
Why does this matter?
Select respondents differ from nonselect ones because they elect to be sampled or because I was able to find them by virtue of something that differentiates them from the population.
For example, my Holocaust survivors might be part of a support group.
These are the Baths of Caracalla. Or at least, this is what remains of them today.
These ruins might not look impressive now, but when they were constructed they might have been one of the finest examples of Roman architecture.
But then Europe forgot how to build them🧵
To get an idea of what the Baths looked like in their heyday, look at this rendering.
This palatial compound must have been a sight to behold since the baths rivaled medieval cathedrals like Laon, Notre-Dame, and Salisbury in scale.
To put numbers on it, the bath building itself was 228 meters long, 116 meters wide, and 38.5 meters tall, with capacity for an estimate 1,600 bathers in a complex with 13 hectares of sumptuous decoration.
New survey: Over half of researchers in Denmark and an international sample from Britain, America, Croatia, and Austria anonymously admitted that they:
- Cite papers they don't read
- Cite irrelevant papers
- Don't put in effort in peer review
- Misreport nonsignificant findings
In another set of questions, the Danish researchers were asked to report their prevalence of engaging in questionable research practices in recent publications and what they estimated it was across the field.
Unless they undersold their prevalence, they were pessimistic.
When the international sample was asked to do the same thing, they were also pessimistic.
Here is the geographic distribution of Adolf Hitler's Y-chromosomal haplogroup.
That Hitler had this Y-haplogroup that's relatively uncommon for Germans has prompted some to claim Hitler had Jewish paternal ancestry.
But did he?🧵
Firstly, how do we know this is Hitler's Y-haplogroup?
Illicit journalistic methods. Less politely: stalking.
A pair of Dutch journalists stalked Hitler's living relatives, gathered their DNA without their consent, and sequenced it to figure this out. Here's one example:
What they discovered was that most of the male relatives were E1b1b.
As reported by the company FamilyTreeDNA in 2010, 9% of Germans have this haplogroup, of whom 20% are Jewish.
So given this is Hitler's Y-haplogroup, we're sitting at maybe 20% with no other information.