0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I wasn't necessarily suggesting that we shouldn't lock down, but it would be interesting to see a price list for other measures that might save more per unit cost. I wonder how fixing climate change would compare, for example.I'm intrigued by the debate about essential vs non-essential in the media too, quite a lot of the economy is essential eventually.
The preliminary fatality rate in Germany was much lower than in Italy or Spain, leading to a discussion and explanations citing the country's higher amount of tests conducted, higher amount of available intensive care beds with respiratory support, absence of COVID-19 analyses in post-mortem tests and higher amount of positive cases among younger people. The head of the Robert Koch Institute warned that the German death rate would increase over time.
Given the enthusiasm of the green movement for turning East Anglia back into a malarial swamp,
Had an interesting discussion with a tropical agronomist today. He had been shown an anticorrelation between the incidence of malaria and COVID,
This gif uses data for USA specifically, but is likely reasonably extended to most industrialized nations. It is a fascinating and horrifying graphical progression:https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/1727839/It indicates that in the order of a few weeks, deaths directly attributable to COVID-19 has eclipsed even heart disease as the leading cause of death (who knows how many otherwise preventable deaths will result from the flooding of hospitals and the exhaustion of physical and human resources associated with outbreaks).That said, the value of human life is not infinite. The United States Department of Transportation defines the value of a statistical human life as about $10,000,000. So the difference between 100,000 deaths (locked down) vs 2,000,000 deaths (not locked down) is on the order of (1.9x106)(107) = $1.9x1013Add to that lost wages assuming that everybody was still working, and it looks like without the lockdowns ~80% of people would contract the disease, of which about 50% would have no symptoms. So if 40% of the US working population were out sick for 2 weeks, with US median pay, that's about $1800x1.56x108x0.4 = $1.1x1011. Not so big compared to all the dying, but also not great.It's hard to know what "would" have happened without lockdowns, but we can see example after example of places that "should" have locked down earlier (from a casualty perspective). But if we really want an "economical" strategy. Aggressive testing and tracking will be able to ensure that populations with low enough infection rates can return to business "as usual" while those with problematic infection rates can shelter in place for a few weeks at a time. (the more people self-isolate, the less time is required to strangle the infection: if only 10% of people isolate, there's no point at all)
Quote from: alancalverd on 14/04/2020 16:52:51Given the enthusiasm of the green movement for turning East Anglia back into a malarial swamp,No, that's your intention. The Greens are trying to stop the UK getting warmer and wetter.
Quote from: alancalverd on 14/04/2020 16:52:51Had an interesting discussion with a tropical agronomist today. He had been shown an anticorrelation between the incidence of malaria and COVID, How did they rule out "poor countries can't afford covid testing"as an explanation?