6 ms·

Or even a basic cost/benefit analysis. "We expect this will save X lives, at a cost of $Y to the economy." Shouldn't someone be doing that analysis? There are l

Or even a basic cost/benefit analysis. "We expect this will save X lives, at a cost of $Y to the economy." Shouldn't someone be doing that analysis? There are lots of things that would save lives if we did them (e.g. ban cars), but we don't because the cost is too high.

kaesar14 7y ago
What cost ratio would you find unacceptably high to stop a pandemic?
- ralph84 7y ago
  Around $10 million per life seems to be the number used in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States
  - tlb 7y ago
    That's a measure of what we should spend to save lives, such as by installing safety equipment. Those expenditures increase the size of the economy. The amount by which we should shrink the economy to save lives might be quite a different number. I haven't seen a good analysis of that case. In general, shrinking the economy costs lives elsewhere such as by malnutrition or lack of money to spend on safety equipment. So the number ought to be lower.
    - wwweston 7y ago
      Deaths will also shrink productive capacity and demand (severe illness would presumably only shrink productive capacity).
    - dllthomas 7y ago
      > Those expenditures increase the size of the economy. If that isn't broken windows, I'm not sure why.
      - tlb 7y ago
        Do you mean the theory that visible signs of petty crime cause more lawlessness generally? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory If so, I don't see the connection.
        dllthomas 7y ago
        I mean the idea that breaking a window is good for the economy because the glazier gets paid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window No relation to the other. Sorry - my mistake in assuming sufficient familiarity with both to disambiguate from context.
        wideasleep1 7y ago
        Zorg from 5th Element might be a more familiar 'parable', with a cherry on top: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY
      - tlb 7y ago
        It's not anything like the parable of the broken windows, because installing safety equipment makes people's lives better, while breaking windows does not.
        dllthomas 7y ago
        If it improves people's lives beyond just the lives saved, then I agree. I don't see that implied in what was written.
  - in_cahoots 7y ago
    What if 90% [n.b.: this is not a real statistic but I do believe 97% of deaths are in people older than 60] of the deaths were of people older than 70 with pre-existing conditions?
    - hirundo 7y ago
      Could the economic gains from fewer retirees consuming lots of medical care and social security funds outweigh the losses in senior experience and volunteerism? Maybe. But not to them.
      - wool_gather 7y ago
        Indeed. The psychology of the dying people's relatives also factors into the economy. I'm sure some actuary somewhere has put a number on it.
        dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        I'm sure anyone who's done a thorough job putting a number to it (probably insurance companies) is probably also smart enough to know that there is little potential upside and much potential downside to sharing that analysis with current society.
        wool_gather 7y ago
        Also very true. :)
wespiser_2018 7y ago
I agree that this analysis should be the basis of the decision, and I'm sure it's not simple tradeoff between lives and economic cost. For instance, no preparation, no response, and huge body count 4 weeks later when a huge fraction of the workforce is sick will damage the economy as well.
bduerst 7y ago
That metric is hard to calculate because the transmission rate is still not very well understood for Covid-19, i.e. In order to calculate the cost of staying open, you need to accurately estimate the number of infected, number of deaths, and impact on current healthcare capacity. What is known is that it is incredibly contagious, so they're taking precautions for a worse-case scenario with these shut downs.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "That metric is hard to calculate because the transmission rate is still not very well understood for Covid-19" I've heard multiple times from the virologists at This Week in Virology that we're not going to know the real numbers until it's all over. In addition to that, they are going to be highly variable depending on the demographics, pre-existing conditions, and the level of medical care you are able to get. So it's going to be very difficult to calculate these sorts of metrics even when the actual infection/death rates are known.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    > In addition to that, they are going to be highly variable depending on the demographics, pre-existing conditions, and the level of medical care you are able to get. Which is a big concern to the US, since there is no universal care. That said, I'm in Canada and the healthcare options in rural areas is often hit or miss -- sometimes just a clinic, sometimes just nothin.

kaesar14 7y ago

What cost ratio would you find unacceptably high to stop a pandemic?

ralph84 7y ago
Around $10 million per life seems to be the number used in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#United_States
- tlb 7y ago
  That's a measure of what we should spend to save lives, such as by installing safety equipment. Those expenditures increase the size of the economy. The amount by which we should shrink the economy to save lives might be quite a different number. I haven't seen a good analysis of that case. In general, shrinking the economy costs lives elsewhere such as by malnutrition or lack of money to spend on safety equipment. So the number ought to be lower.
  - wwweston 7y ago
    Deaths will also shrink productive capacity and demand (severe illness would presumably only shrink productive capacity).
  - dllthomas 7y ago
    > Those expenditures increase the size of the economy. If that isn't broken windows, I'm not sure why.
    - tlb 7y ago
      Do you mean the theory that visible signs of petty crime cause more lawlessness generally? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory If so, I don't see the connection.
      - dllthomas 7y ago
        I mean the idea that breaking a window is good for the economy because the glazier gets paid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window No relation to the other. Sorry - my mistake in assuming sufficient familiarity with both to disambiguate from context.
        wideasleep1 7y ago
        Zorg from 5th Element might be a more familiar 'parable', with a cherry on top: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY
    - tlb 7y ago
      It's not anything like the parable of the broken windows, because installing safety equipment makes people's lives better, while breaking windows does not.
      - dllthomas 7y ago
        If it improves people's lives beyond just the lives saved, then I agree. I don't see that implied in what was written.
- in_cahoots 7y ago
  What if 90% [n.b.: this is not a real statistic but I do believe 97% of deaths are in people older than 60] of the deaths were of people older than 70 with pre-existing conditions?
  - hirundo 7y ago
    Could the economic gains from fewer retirees consuming lots of medical care and social security funds outweigh the losses in senior experience and volunteerism? Maybe. But not to them.
    - wool_gather 7y ago
      Indeed. The psychology of the dying people's relatives also factors into the economy. I'm sure some actuary somewhere has put a number on it.
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        I'm sure anyone who's done a thorough job putting a number to it (probably insurance companies) is probably also smart enough to know that there is little potential upside and much potential downside to sharing that analysis with current society.
        wool_gather 7y ago
        Also very true. :)

wespiser_2018 7y ago

I agree that this analysis should be the basis of the decision, and I'm sure it's not simple tradeoff between lives and economic cost. For instance, no preparation, no response, and huge body count 4 weeks later when a huge fraction of the workforce is sick will damage the economy as well.

bduerst 7y ago

That metric is hard to calculate because the transmission rate is still not very well understood for Covid-19, i.e. In order to calculate the cost of staying open, you need to accurately estimate the number of infected, number of deaths, and impact on current healthcare capacity. What is known is that it is incredibly contagious, so they're taking precautions for a worse-case scenario with these shut downs.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"That metric is hard to calculate because the transmission rate is still not very well understood for Covid-19" I've heard multiple times from the virologists at This Week in Virology that we're not going to know the real numbers until it's all over. In addition to that, they are going to be highly variable depending on the demographics, pre-existing conditions, and the level of medical care you are able to get. So it's going to be very difficult to calculate these sorts of metrics even when the actual infection/death rates are known.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  > In addition to that, they are going to be highly variable depending on the demographics, pre-existing conditions, and the level of medical care you are able to get. Which is a big concern to the US, since there is no universal care. That said, I'm in Canada and the healthcare options in rural areas is often hit or miss -- sometimes just a clinic, sometimes just nothin.