4 ms·

> Death is sad and terrible, but we don't shut down society because people die. Yea, but COVID has the potential to kill a lot of people, quickly -- are you su

> Death is sad and terrible, but we don't shut down society because people die. Yea, but COVID has the potential to kill a lot of people, quickly -- are you suggesting it's a bad idea to "shut down society" to keep our hospitals functioning? I get the point that the economic cost is severe and also comes with its own share of human cost, but we're talking about saving ~1-2 million people in the US alone by doing this. Several trillion dollars is still worth it...

aianus 6y ago
> Several trillion dollars is still worth it $2 trillion is 10% of GDP or the losses in ~6 months of a lockdown resulting in 80% productivity (with the assumption that everything goes back to normal immediately after the shutdown, which it won't) So it seems like a ~6 month lockdown is warranted if you crassly value saving a life from COVID at $1 million. That's not long enough for a vaccine. Alternatively, working backwards, you need to value a life saved at $3-$4m each to make a 18-24 month lockdown worth it.
- johnnyo 6y ago
  We’ve already got a “Value of Statistical Life” in the US, and it’s higher than that. So you could justify lockdown on that alone EPA recommends that the central estimate of $7.4 million ($2006), updated to the year of the analysis, be used in all benefits analyses that seek to quantify mortality risk reduction benefits regardless of the age, income, or other population characteristics of the affected population https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-valuation#means https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-v...
- astrophysician 6y ago
  6 month lockdown doesn’t seem necessary, but a lockdown until it’s possible to do contact tracing and containment does seem necessary, either way this is something that easily warrants a drastic response because the potential cost is so high.
beagle3 6y ago
> we're talking about saving ~1-2 million people in the US alone by doing this. Several trillion dollars is still worth it... No, we're not. 88% of people on ventilators in NYC don't survive (in a predictable pattern - 97.2% over age 65 don't for example). You might remember that just a couple of weeks ago, everyone was calling for more ventilators and every company with a workshop started building one -- because it was assumed (a) they would be needed, and (b) they would be very useful; neither is considered self evident truth (or truth at all) three weeks later. There is no vaccine yet, and no medicine yet, and either may take a year or twenty (TTBOMK, no successful vaccine for the corona family was ever made, and not for lack of trying). Unless you assume a miracle, the assumption is everyone will get it -- and so far, our ability to significantly "save" people has not been demonstrated. The only reasonable assumption right now is that everyone will get it, and while keeping the hospital system function is important in general, it makes little difference to those who get COVID19. A more reasonable model is that we're avoiding a 6-8 month reduction in life expectancy, at a cost of (so far) 2 months of normal life. Whether it is worth it or not is not for me or you to decide and obviously depends on your point of view -- but it is clearly not self evident one way or another. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/22/coronavirus-ventilators-survival/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/22/coronavirus... edit: someone is systematically downvoting all my posts on this thread. Whoeveer that is, I am not advocating for or against a course of action - I'm addressing the math. It is your right to downvote without explanation, but if you think I'm wrong, I would appreciate an explanation.

aianus 6y ago

> Several trillion dollars is still worth it $2 trillion is 10% of GDP or the losses in ~6 months of a lockdown resulting in 80% productivity (with the assumption that everything goes back to normal immediately after the shutdown, which it won't) So it seems like a ~6 month lockdown is warranted if you crassly value saving a life from COVID at $1 million. That's not long enough for a vaccine. Alternatively, working backwards, you need to value a life saved at $3-$4m each to make a 18-24 month lockdown worth it.

johnnyo 6y ago
We’ve already got a “Value of Statistical Life” in the US, and it’s higher than that. So you could justify lockdown on that alone EPA recommends that the central estimate of $7.4 million ($2006), updated to the year of the analysis, be used in all benefits analyses that seek to quantify mortality risk reduction benefits regardless of the age, income, or other population characteristics of the affected population https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-valuation#means https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/mortality-risk-v...
astrophysician 6y ago
6 month lockdown doesn’t seem necessary, but a lockdown until it’s possible to do contact tracing and containment does seem necessary, either way this is something that easily warrants a drastic response because the potential cost is so high.

beagle3 6y ago

> we're talking about saving ~1-2 million people in the US alone by doing this. Several trillion dollars is still worth it... No, we're not. 88% of people on ventilators in NYC don't survive (in a predictable pattern - 97.2% over age 65 don't for example). You might remember that just a couple of weeks ago, everyone was calling for more ventilators and every company with a workshop started building one -- because it was assumed (a) they would be needed, and (b) they would be very useful; neither is considered self evident truth (or truth at all) three weeks later. There is no vaccine yet, and no medicine yet, and either may take a year or twenty (TTBOMK, no successful vaccine for the corona family was ever made, and not for lack of trying). Unless you assume a miracle, the assumption is everyone will get it -- and so far, our ability to significantly "save" people has not been demonstrated. The only reasonable assumption right now is that everyone will get it, and while keeping the hospital system function is important in general, it makes little difference to those who get COVID19. A more reasonable model is that we're avoiding a 6-8 month reduction in life expectancy, at a cost of (so far) 2 months of normal life. Whether it is worth it or not is not for me or you to decide and obviously depends on your point of view -- but it is clearly not self evident one way or another. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/22/coronavirus-ventilators-survival/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/22/coronavirus... edit: someone is systematically downvoting all my posts on this thread. Whoeveer that is, I am not advocating for or against a course of action - I'm addressing the math. It is your right to downvote without explanation, but if you think I'm wrong, I would appreciate an explanation.