3 ms·
And from my point of view as someone in the field, arguments on either side are almost always based on an intuitive gut feeling about morality. Very few people
by epgui 5y ago
And from my point of view as someone in the field, arguments on either side are almost always based on an intuitive gut feeling about morality.
Very few people actually try to wrangle with putting numbers on the cost (in dollars) of a human life, or the economic burden of disease. There are no right or wrong numbers, but only if you begin there can you say you're rationally considering the economic or political tradeoffs.
Edit: and deaths could absolutely reach zero. If we threw everything and the kitchen sink at the problem, we would eradicate it in absolutely no time. The underlying question is the same here, namely whether the cost of eradicating the disease would be larger or smaller than what we would gain from doing it.
- ummonk 5y agoI think you overestimate our ability to “eradicate it in absolutely no time”. Eliminating it from both human and animal reservoirs (and permanently quarantining any immunocompromised carriers) worldwide would be a long and arduous process.
- epgui 5y agoYou make a great point about animal reservoirs, but the transmission bandwidth between humans and animals is afaik much lower than between humans. If you accept this assumption, and if we also assume that we really wanted to eradicate this thing, we could limit human transmission such as to reduce Rt well below 1 by implementing well-coordinated and strict policies. Then you're left with the "leaky bucket" of transmission between humans and animals... But this is a known vulnerable point which could be monitored effectively and very cheaply.
- nradov 5y agoThis is completely unrealistic. Effective continuous monitoring for animal to human transmission would never be cheap. In much of the developing world it's not even remotely feasible. Have you ever been to places like rural Mexico? The virus is here to stay. Eradication is a total fantasy, just a distraction and waste of time.
- retrac 5y agoHere in Canada, we've been trying to eradicate rabies from the wild for half a century or so now. There are orally-active rabies vaccines we litter the landscape with in edible treat format. We cull rabid animals and quarantine or cull their known animal contacts. It's common knowledge that exposure to possible vectors means you need to go to the hospital. Tens of thousands of people are treated preventatively each year. Despite all this, human cases of rabies still happen. Fortunately it's rather hard to spread rabies between humans and it's symptomatic by the time it becomes infectious. In the case of an easily airborne virus even with such measures available like vaccination and prophylaxis for possible exposure, it seems daunting to the point of impossible even in a very wealthy country. In the developing world it would be certainly hopeless.
- epgui 5y agoYeah, eradication of a disease in the wild is a whole other matter. But so rabies also is another matter. Cases are relatively rare here (hello, fellow Canadian!), and surveillance is relatively good for the little burden of disease it brings. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/rabies/surveillance.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/rab... Genetic surveillance is just around the corner, and will soon be / is now within reach even of developing countries, with solutions like Oxford Nanopore's ultra-portable sequencers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RRSxWtJPUw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RRSxWtJPUw
- bcrosby95 5y agoDepending upon the specific agency, agencies in the USA value a statistical life at anywhere from $7-$10 million.
- epgui 5y agoAs a Canadian, I usually use the US DoT numbers (in the same ballpark as what you said) for my mental maths. A couple extra things to consider: - what’s the date on these figures? - can we extrapolate this to other countries? - are these figures generally accepted, or are they controversial? - how do you account for age, sex (differences in life expectancy, child bearing capacity, etc), education level or professional skill, etc?
- novok 5y agoIronically enough, I think the data set comes from lawsuits that determine all of those conditions. A surgeon for example with all of their future surgeon income ruined by a bad car accident + medical care can be around $30 million, while someone who is relatively old with no chances of future income + medical care would typically get less AFAIK. It probably averages out to that $7-10 million figure.