14 ms·
When talking about economic damage it is also worth thinking about what we are trying to avoid in the US- if SARS-Cov2 gets to 60% of the population, then at a
by topkai22 7y ago
When talking about economic damage it is also worth thinking about what we are trying to avoid in the US- if SARS-Cov2 gets to 60% of the population, then at a 2% case fatality rate we are looking at 4 million excess deaths. Most importantly, that is a humanitarian tragedy that we must avoid. However, having numbers also let’s us put an economic value out there for what we are trying to save.
A 1% reduction in the case fatality rate saves roughly 2M people. Let’s assume that each would live another 10 years and that each person year is worth $100k. That means a 1% reduction in the case fatality rate is worth 2 trillion dollars. That’s roughly 10% of GDP. You can play with the numbers a bit, it’s hard not to end up in the “taking a multi year recession might be worth it” territory. Obviously, there are decreasing marginal returns to various actions, but the it’s important to keep in mind the scale of what we are trying to avoid.
- ryanobjc 7y agoActually then CFR would probably be like 5% if medical services would be overcome. So more like 11m excess deaths.
- topkai22 7y agoI picked a lower number to get less quibbles from any doubters. But yeah, bringing CFR from 5% to 2% at 60% infection you can justify actions that otherwise seem nuts.
- willis936 7y agoHonestly, the number I take issue with is the $100k. In terms of household income, this is far above the median.
- topkai22 7y agoThe actuarial value of a human life is difficult to calculate, but it is definitely above the economic output. There are large 2nd order effects- the pain of those left behind. I picked $100k because it made the math easy, but it's also between the $50k and $129k numbers i grabbed off Wikipedia. Also, this is one of the rare times it does makes sense to go with mean as the measure of center.
- hartator 7y agoCurrent total deaths are 6,000 with China already saying the worst is behind them. Why the US would have 4M deaths?
- rocha 7y agoProbably means 4M assuming that no containment measures are taken. Like someone said on twitter, “In the end, it will be impossible to know if we overreacted or did too much, but it will be QUITE apparent if we under reacted or did too little.”
- Data_Junkie 7y agoRight, the rich have nothing to lose, the poorer capitalists pay for the over reaction. That's why we see an over reacting, panicking society, because the rich benefit from it. It is the only reason they do anything, I hate to break it to you.
- rocha 7y agoIf nothing is done, the least privileged will suffer the most due lack of access to health services and a financial safety net.
- Data_Junkie 7y agoBut what is most assuredly going to happen is what benefits rich people. The rest is collateral damage or pure luck. Is what it is, nothing new under the sun.
- pinot 7y agoChina nipped this before they spent much time in the exponential phase: http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#g8 http://nrg.cs.ucl.ac.uk/mjh/covid19/#g8 US is tracking highly with Italy, but 12 days behind.
- briandear 7y ago
- acangiano 7y agoAlso, 2% is very dubious. Italy is at 7%. The Philippines at 8%. I mean, sure these figures are out of people who were tested, but 2% is looking awfully optimistic at this point. So the potential for death reduction is even greater than the intentionally unassailable 1% figure you picked.
- rocha 7y agoNote that in both cases there is a selection bias, due poor testing, and having the majority of initial reported cases being severe enough to reach hospitals. In my opinion, South Korea has better data, due to massive testing, and not having a completely overwhelmed health system. The rate there is 0.6%, which is still significant.
- JamesBarney 7y ago0.6%-1% is what we would be looking at when everyone gets the medical care they need. But many people are suggesting that instead of shutting down a large portion of the economy we let this thing rip through our population. And if we do that, a very small percentage of the population will get the healthcare they need. So the rate we should use when considering the "rip the bandaid" off approach should be closer to 6% than 0.6%.
- ardy42 7y ago> And if we do that, a very small percentage of the population will get the healthcare they need. So the rate we should use when considering the "rip the bandaid" off approach should be closer to 6% than 0.6%. And if you take the "rip the bandaid off" approach, you can't restrict your analysis to just CoVID-19 deaths. The strain on the medical system will mean there will be an increase in deaths from other causes that didn't get the treatment they need.
- easytiger 7y agoThose tested represent a tiny fraction of those likely infected.
- dillondoyle 7y agoI hate myself for saying this but if one wants a cold calculous thought experiment, what about thinking about the mortality age? mostly older people, not only don't work but are also often a net burden to society.
- llampx 7y agoYes we've already extracted all the value we could extract from them. Better get rid of the useless husks asap. Do you realize how that sounds?
- AlgorithmicTime 7y agoOf course he realizes how that sounds, that's why he prepended "I hate myself for saying this" rather than just saying the cold facts un-prepended.
- bobbylarrybobby 7y agoIf we’re gonna talk about the economic value of individuals to society, it makes sense to evaluate that value correctly. The premise of the discussion was that a life has finite value to society.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- thrownaway954 7y agodon't hate yourself. china is facing a huge economic epidemic from the elderly and although noone wants to be "that guy" this virus outbreak could actually be a good thing for them and the rest of the world to curb the elderly population. https://time.com/5523805/china-aging-population-working-age/ https://time.com/5523805/china-aging-population-working-age/
- anewguy9000 7y agoits a hard but fair and valid moral question
- SkyPuncher 7y ago
- easytiger 7y agoAnd if the mortality rates (from Italy) are fundamentally wrong/misleading?
- Mountain_Skies 7y agoPerhaps an unknowable ahead of time, but if we go into recession due to shutting everything down rather than due to poor market fundamentals, the recovery from the recession could be fairly rapid by historical standards.
- naiveprogrammer 7y agoWhen it is all said and done, we will find out that the mortality rate is very close to regular flu (around 0.1%). Italy, China and other countries with high mortality rate are not a great model because they were caught unprepared and their health system cannot sustain a moderate peak in hospitalizations. Also keep in mind that a large segment of the infected people go untested in most places which affects the denominator. I see many epidemiologists estimating that the number of true infected is 5 or even 10 fold of what we are seeing being reported. If that is the case, then we can assume the mortality rate certainly drops to less than 1% and most likely ranges in the 0.5% to 0.1%.
- pombrand 7y agoWho cares about Case Fatality Rate (the % diagnosed that die), it depends on how many cases are measured. What you need to base yourself on is estimated Infected Fatality Rate (the % infected that die) which is what the CDC states is about 0.1% for the seasonal flu in the US. In Korea the CFR is closing on the IFR as they're testing thousands of asymptomatic people, currently at 0.6% AFAIK. Infected Fatality Rate will likely end up at 0.3% taking the diamond princess cruise ship as a model (this assumes access to quality care and a PCR false negative rate of 29% adjusted for the higher average age on the cruise). Worst case: 327 million people * 0.6 (a worst case nr) * 0.005 = 981 000 dead. More likely 30% gets infected, we figure out what treatment options are optimal and we end up with something like 30% infected and a 0.2% IFR = 196 000 dead.
- cutemonster 7y agoWhen running out of hospital beds the fatality rate increases a lot though.