[stdbrouw]

Cute and thus worthy of an upvote, but whenever I see scientists or economists refer to first or second order effects it pertains to things that are subsequent to each other in time, or at least intended vs. ancillary. I don't think anyone except for a Stafford "the purpose of a system is what it does" Beer acolyte would designate new demand of pill bottles as the first order effect of a new medication.

It's just something that statisticians have observed across many fields: you theorize about how potentially huge a particular interaction effect or knock-on effect could be relative to the main effect, you read about the Jevons Paradox and intuitively feel that it can explain so much of the world today... and then you get the data and it just almost never does. No reason why it couldn't, just empirically it rarely happens.

[estearum]

The demand for pill bottles literally does grow before anyone takes the medication, no?

And correct I agree they wouldn't designate the demand for pill bottles as the first order effect. That's because despite happening first, it's not the most important object of analysis. That's why it's a disproof of your earlier claim that second order effects aren't more significant than first order ones: because if they were, they'd be considered the first order effect.

[skissane]

> The demand for pill bottles literally does grow before anyone takes the medication, no?

Only really in the US. In most other countries they use blister packs instead. Global consumption of blister packs is so huge (not just for prescription medications, also OTC, vitamins, supplements, and complementary medicines), even a blockbuster medication likely only makes a modest difference to manufacturer demand in percentage terms.