

Lottery Ticket Approach Leads to Reduction in HIV Prevalence - kposehn
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/12/lottery-ticket-approach-leads-to-drastic-reduction-in-hiv-prevalence/?utm_content=buffer037f2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

======
mcherm
So, if I've got this right, sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted
mostly by people with a high tolerance for risk (people who tend to engage in
risky behavior). Also, people with a high tolerance for risk tend to overvalue
lotteries. So they targeted that population by incorporating a lottery into
their social program.

Clever.

~~~
learnstats2
This is indeed where the article goes, but I suggest risk is overstated as a
factor here.

Everyone knows they should be tested, so an incentive to actually go and do it
doesn't need to be large or meaningful. This also acts as a genuine
acknowledgement by the state that this is important and that it's without
taboo.

Testing reduces everyone's chance of being infected - so it ought to reduce
risk-takers' chances proportionately more, lottery or not.

------
phn
I'm not sure how I feel about using "game-y" things to convince people to do
stuff, especially when we're talking about serious stuff.

In Portugal a similar strategy was used to hinder tax evasion, where you got a
chance (a ticket, so to speak) to win a car for each receipt you demanded on
every purchase you made. (I'm oversimplifying a bit, I think)

It somehow feels like cheating/manipulating people, since we are terrible at
estimating very small odds, making this kind of stuff an effective strategy
with a very small cost for whoever provides the prize.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Your chance of winning money may be tiny, but your chance of _actually not
dying of a AIDS_ went way up. Pay for the infinitessimal chance of a coffee,
receive a donut instead. Tasty, tasty donut.

~~~
phn
Yeah, but the will to actually not dying of AIDS should be taught somehow.
Otherwise, you are covering up the problem. In a year the lottery goes away,
AIDS comes up again.

Just like fixing a bug superficially instead of going for the root.

If you wanted donuts you could've just get them in the first place.

I am not saying the results aren't positive, or that they aren't better than
nothing. But I don't think this solves anything in the long term, and the
manipulative and "the ends justify the means" approach rings the "should this
really be done?" alarm bell in my mind.

~~~
learnstats2
One reason that HIV infection is high is because it's a taboo subject. The
government can affect this taboo status through education, yes, and also this
way.

Punishing HIV positive people (for example, by making it illegal for them to
enter the country) contributes to this taboo. Giving a government-mandated
lottery ticket mitigates the taboo, and it's my belief that this will have
lasting positive consequences even after the lottery goes away.

Also, people not getting infected today are not infecting people tomorrow (
_exponentially_ ). Stopping infections today is exactly the right thing to do
for the long-term.

