4 ms·

As I've simulated numerically [1] (which has been discussed elsewhere on HN [2]), there is no tradeoff between saving lives (due to COVID-19) and reducing wides

As I've simulated numerically [1] (which has been discussed elsewhere on HN [2]), there is no tradeoff between saving lives (due to COVID-19) and reducing widespread economic damage. Counterintuitively, the policy frontier (economic vs human damage) is concave and non-monotonic, and has three distinct regions, as you can see in the linked graph. However, this is a highly technical argument designed for engineering-minded or economics-minded thinkers. If we have leaders who are "not terribly sharp" as you say, I'm not sure what we can do about it. [1] https://www.circuitlab.com/blog/2020/05/28/surprising-covid-19-strategy-how-to-reduce-economic-damage/ https://www.circuitlab.com/blog/2020/05/28/surprising-covid-... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23418252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23418252

dorgo 6y ago
Great work! I think simulations/models are a great tool. some feedback: >there is no tradeoff between saving lives (due to COVID-19) and reducing widespread economic damage It is easy to show that there is no tradeoff by assuming that economic damage is only dependend on the duration of the lockdown. Why not aim for R=0? This would save even more lives and reduce the duration of the lockdown to what? 3 weeks? It will just stop all economic activity for 3 weeks. More severe policies have a greater impact on economy. And my intuition is that this dependency is non-liniar. Each reduction of R by 0.1 could for example double(?) the damage to economy. I only skimmed your article [1] - so maybe you already addressed this? >Counterintuitively, the policy frontier (economic vs human damage) is concave and non-monotonic, and has three distinct regions. Not surprising at all. I think the right hand side negative slope region of the policy curve is the herd immunity strategy (at least I call it so). It was discussed (and rejected) months ago.

dorgo 6y ago

Great work! I think simulations/models are a great tool. some feedback: >there is no tradeoff between saving lives (due to COVID-19) and reducing widespread economic damage It is easy to show that there is no tradeoff by assuming that economic damage is only dependend on the duration of the lockdown. Why not aim for R=0? This would save even more lives and reduce the duration of the lockdown to what? 3 weeks? It will just stop all economic activity for 3 weeks. More severe policies have a greater impact on economy. And my intuition is that this dependency is non-liniar. Each reduction of R by 0.1 could for example double(?) the damage to economy. I only skimmed your article [1] - so maybe you already addressed this? >Counterintuitively, the policy frontier (economic vs human damage) is concave and non-monotonic, and has three distinct regions. Not surprising at all. I think the right hand side negative slope region of the policy curve is the herd immunity strategy (at least I call it so). It was discussed (and rejected) months ago.