Agree with this. Have had to learn to do this with some people I know who intuit a lot of their beliefs, but tend to be right a lot.

This seems like an informal extension of the no disagreement theroem to situations where the agent are not perfect rationalists.

> The cost of catching the flu despite not receiving a flu shot was estimated as being 1000 USD for a healthy adult, given the cost of losing 4-5 days of productivity if one's time is valued at 20 USD/hour, plus the costs of providing palliative care to oneself, estimated at 100 USD, and the cost equivalent to the negative monetary value of experiencing a lower quality of life than usual while sick, estimated at 200 USD. <<

This is this bit that stands out the most to me as warranting some analysis. Maybe in the US things are very different, but in Australia we have sick leave for the full time employed - which is most people on 20USD/hour (or local equivalent). Being sick for 4-5 would not cost you a penny. Mind you, this may then translate to an argument for employers to provide free flu inoculations as has been advocated elsewhere: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-05/employers-encouraged-to-provide-flu-vaccinations-for-staff/5431698

I think the analysis changes a lot if you have insurance/live in a country with a public health care system.

Also where did 200 USD for diminished quality of life come from? That phrase has a particular legal meaning - is that intentional, or do you just mean "what I would pay to not have the flu, other economic considerations aside"?