-
Cost per life saved
What do you think the cost is per life saved from Covid 19 in the USA based on the current near complete quarantine and economic shut down. I am not comparing it to an alternative of going out of your way to infect and be infected by every stranger you meet, but rather doing what Sweden is doing (encouraging social distancing but keeping the economy open).
So far the cost in US is 2 trillion based on economic stimulus alone, soon to be at least 3 trillion. I think it is higher when you factor in that 3 trillion is unlikely to completely revive the economy. Perhaps 5-10 trillion is fair?
We are on pace for 80,000 deaths. If we did what Sweden is doing I would guess deaths might be 50,00-100,000 higher. Lets choose two values, 100,000 and 1 million.
If we are saving 100,000 lives at 5 trillion dollars the cost per life saved is 50 million each I believe.
If saving 1 million lives the cost is still 5 million per life saved.
Does that seem practical?
I realize there would still be a cost to the economy if we did what Sweden is doing, but I think it would be much, much lower.
Not meant to be a political discussion. Just a question about whether modern society is rational. Feel free to poke holes in my argument as that is the purpose of debate. Maybe just try to be civil in your debate.
-
74 Replies
-
Please, I hope nobody here falls for this troll.
-
Its not meant as a trap. What makes it a trap? That the cost is irrelevant?
-
Most of the lives “saved” aren’t actually saved. It will only be intellectually honest to count excess mortalities.
In such case probably going to be at least $100,000,000 per life truly saved. Compare that to an automatic speeding cameras we could install in California coupled with actual enforcement ($0 switch w/ political will only), which would probably be around $3,000 per life. Some other cost-effective things to consider to save lives are taxes on sugar, free public exercise facilities, walking-friendly public infrastructure, mental health facilities, etc.
-
Lets see what do I think. I didnt think about it at all.
-
It’s why Mexico isn’t doing d*ck. During H1N1 aka Swine Flu, they locked down their entire country, lost 391 lives but nuked their entire economy. Some say they have never recovered. Fast forward 11 years, new virus, their leadership said F it, let’s just roll with it.
-
[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-government-puts-a-dollar-value-on-life-1458911310]https://www.wsj.com/artic…lue-on-life-1458911310[/link]
Most federal agencies value a statistical life at $9 to 10 million dollars. People understandably hate the concept, but it does officially exist for statistical purposes.
So, depending on where you want to land between the 100,000 and 1 million lives saved, the money spent was either an overpay or a bargain.
-
Im a fan of what Sweden and Mexico are doing. The cost per life is way to high in terms of dollars and damage to emotions/etc. The old people I know are the only new not social distancing. The younger generations seem to following the rules.
-
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Lets see what do I think. I didnt think about it at all.
I see that little has changed. At least you didn’t write your non-thoughts down on the forum this time for others to see.
-
-
Quote from avocado
Most of the lives “saved” aren’t actually saved. It will only be intellectually honest to count excess mortalities.
In such case probably going to be at least $100,000,000 per life truly saved. Compare that to an automatic speeding cameras we could install in California coupled with actual enforcement ($0 switch w/ political will only), which would probably be around $3,000 per life. Some other cost-effective things to consider to save lives are taxes on sugar, free public exercise facilities, walking-friendly public infrastructure, mental health facilities, etc.
Correct. As I’ve said before, language is everything.
If you really wanna be brash, from a nation state or government’s point of view of pure output vs. parasitism vs. people already lived a long, full life you are actually [i][b]paying to hurt your country more[/b][/i]. That’s how awful the whole thing is, showing once again political gain is holding everyone hostage. Sad, but true.
-
-
-
-
Quote from fumoney
What do you think the cost is per life saved from Covid 19
It’s too high. We’re spending too much and getting too little on covid. I think the metric is “quality adjusted life years”, QALY.
Sweden appears to be handling it better, from what I’ve read.-
How much is a retired persons life worth?
What percent of heroics are going to the working age population?
-
-
Another way of looking at things, “What is appropriate human longevity?” “How old is too old?” “At what age is healthcare on the elderly (age of “elderly” to be determined) wasted investment?”
Why stop when COVID is no longer an issue. Deciding whether to provide healthcare to the elderly will remain an expense regardless. Many posters on AM seem to think providing healthcare to the elderly is a burden on society. So where should be the limits? What rationing should be the standard for the average person with average wealth? And should healthcare resources even be wasted on those with whom cost is no limit?
“Inquiring minds need to know.”-
Ezekiel Emmanuel has published JAMA and other articles on the QALY concept, with strong, supportive comments. He is on record for the age cutoff of 75 for initiation of limited treatments, and has stated that mind/cognitive decline after 75 is so much below basic thresholds that it should be considered, well, not meriting ethical protections, to state it carefully. He is Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, a key advisor for the Obama campaigns/admin. and for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and now for Joe Biden’s campaign (age 77, I think). I am over 60, and for many reasons, ethical, moral, religious (and personal) reject his paradigm.
-
Well apparently Ezekiel’s opinions are becoming mainstream at least as far as certain media and some AM posters is concerned.
-
Can we move these types of threads out of the “general radiology” section? This has nothing to do with Radiology.
-
Except these are radiologists for the most part discussing a response to a pandemic as a discussion about the value of lives vs cost. This is not mere politics, this is medical people questioning the limits about helping people to live and whether it costs too much.
How much more relevant can a topic be?
-
-
-
Quote from MSK/SW
Ezekiel Emmanuel has published JAMA and other articles on the QALY concept, with strong, supportive comments. He is on record for the age cutoff of 75 for initiation of limited treatments, and has stated that mind/cognitive decline after 75 is so much below basic thresholds that it should be considered, well, not meriting ethical protections, to state it carefully. He is Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, a key advisor for the Obama campaigns/admin. and for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and now for Joe Biden’s campaign (age 77, I think). I am over 60, and for many reasons, ethical, moral, religious (and personal) reject his paradigm.
The fact of the matter is that Zeke’s crassness (at least he’s honest) and our opinions wouldn’t matter one iota if everyone was accountable for their own health and care in a transparent system where healthcare is not a “right.”
All the “rights” people can talk until they are blue in the face, but the fact remains that these topics won’t go away due to the government being bankrupt and/or insolvent in all of these programs. That’s why it’s even more ironic for Hack Emanuel to even weigh in.-
Taking the purely economic side of this post – The $5 trillion (or thereabouts) figure is not an absolute payout and thus can be made into a dollar figure per life. Much of the both the congressional package and the more recent Fed package are loans that need to be paid back, “grants” with lots of strings attached or are funds being used to purchase real assets of varying risk (mortgages, etc.). Stimulus payments and grants will eventually be taxed. Loans will be repaid. Many of the bonds purchased to stabilize credit markets will still have value and may actually generate real positive returns. The dollar figures are there to give headline news something to chirp about.
The publicly infamous TARP program ended up actually earning the government money back, albeit a small amount, although most people still likely think the gov’t gave away $700 billion. But people don’t like to talk about the economists and Fed as actually knowing what they were doing, so much easier to say the bailed out the billionaires (although admittedly that was an unfortunate aspect of the situation, that none of those folks went to jail). Let’s hope these measures work out just as well, if not better. And at least the companies this time aren’t the cause of the problem.
[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program[/link]
So the real end cost will be much less than quoted, although clearly there is going to be economic pain for many for the rest of 2020 and likely 2021.
And for my two cents, it will hopefully come as a wake up call to business and individuals of all sizes that saving and having an emergency fund is essential! I saw some internet article about a rad calling his mortgage company for forbearance – yikes. I’d hope anyone in our economic situation has enough saved to function for a few months at least.-
New England Rad makes a good point. I am not an economist and was just trying to make a rough estimate in my initial post. Realistically, the cost will best be determined by where our society is in 12-24 months. If the economy has by then recovered, unemployment returns to normal and there is not a record number of foreclosures, then the cost will not be second guessed. There is a real risk that things do not recover so well. I am glad Sweden is doing what they are doing, because while I acknowledge their demographics are different than ours, if their outcome is not terribly different, it gives the globe an alternative approach to future pandemics that is not so disruptive.
One poster stated this topic is not relevant to the radiology forum. I am a radnot a troll. If you had a radiology meeting and an 800 lb gorilla was in the room, the 800 lb gorilla would be relevant even were it not the intended topic of the meeting. Radiology has been profoundly affected by the shutdown.
-
After watching for awhile I am glad this thread did not deteriorate rapidly. Maybe that is because of our suspended members. I’m still not interested in participating because it is not something I can put a number on. Just acknowledging you are not the troll I suspected you were.
-
Agreed. Have had good discussions with fumoney before. If it’s not already clear, fumoney is not a troll and generates good discussions.
To NewEngRad, I agree on the point about how individuals should have a 6 month “emergency fund”. This is usually the first thing that personal finance experts recommend that you save for.
For businesses…trickier. For one, having a 6 month emergency fund for a business is usually not feasible. Most businesses (particularly restaurants) run on a thin margin of a few percentage points in good times. Two, these days borrowing money is relatively cheap. Finally, for a business to hoard all that cash means that they’re not plowing that cash back into the business in the form of store upgrades, employee retention/increased pay, and so on. Most businesses have to constantly reinvest their profits into these kinds of things, otherwise they stop being competitive and lose revenue, and go out of business.
-
If interest rates weren’t so low maybe everyone could keep bigger emergency funds instead of borrowing to the hilt. So the government/Fed ends up becoming everyone’s emergency fund.
All the personal finance folks blast people for not keeping enough in savings. Not very appealing with negative real interest rates.-
Quote from comet tail
If interest rates weren’t so low maybe everyone could keep bigger emergency funds instead of borrowing to the hilt. So the government/Fed ends up becoming everyone’s emergency fund.
Yes. In an odd way, with interest rates this low, businesses are heavily incentivized to simply borrow, borrow, borrow and load up on cheap debt.-
Quote from radgrinder
Yes. In an odd way, with interest rates this low, businesses are heavily incentivized to simply borrow, borrow, borrow and load up on cheap debt.
Yeah not just businesses but even ordinary people have no incentive to build up these emergency funds. People cannot weather a storm for a month or two without going broke. So they need checks from Uncle Sam in the mail at our expense.
I would like to keep more in savings myself. But since I don’t want to lose money I put it in stocks and junk bonds. Safe bonds pay a pittance. -
People and companies don’t save for emergencies because they learned in 2008 there is no need. The govt will bail you out.
The 99ers (people that used 99 weeks of unemployment benefits last recession) learned and so did banks. They would have been stupid to save money otherwise knowing the Fed and Treasury would bail them out again.
They will learn this time to extend themselves even more and it will continue to repeat. Only when they learn the hard way and get nothing will they actually save since they can’t rely on anyone else. -
Yup.
I don’t think we will be able to afford it again. China’s going to eat our lunch next time.
But we’re spending too much per life on this corona business. -
Not sure if we can afford much of anything ever again. Federal debt is 7x Federal revenue. Talk about leverage…
Everyone talks about Debt to GDP ratios, but ignores the more important debt to income ratio that us commoners have to follow in the real world.
Edit: And of course that annual tax revenue/income can’t even cover annual expenses which is even worse… -
Quote from comet tail
I would like to keep more in savings myself. But since I don’t want to lose money I put it in stocks and junk bonds. Safe bonds pay a pittance.
And they will continue to. Bonds are the worst thing to be in, you will wake up in just a few years and realize, whoops
The post on what’s coming is too long, and frankly so few will even admit it or because they dislike me (not you guys), they will disregard, so I won’t waste my time. I’ll be prepared, though — and it’s going to happen this decade. -
The title of this is “Cost per life saved.”
? -
The true question here should have been… [b]What is the cost of being totally unprepared for a pandemic that everyone knew was coming?[/b] The answer in terms of lives lost, jobs lost and economic damage, permanent psychological and physical damage to society, etc …is incalculable. We are paying right now for our failure to plan and our failure of imagination that this could happen to us.
And just think, global pandemics are just the tip of the iceberg of what modern industrialized civilization faces. I fear for my children’s future. -
“Totally unprepared?”
“Pandemic?”
“Everyone knew was coming”?
Over the top post, let alone [b]bolding[/b], of the year. -
It’s been known for years that we were on the brink of a global pandemic. To be precise:
[b][link=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/04/11/america-two-decade-failure-prepare-coronavirus-179574]Inside Americas 2-Decade Failure to Prepare for Coronavirus[/link][/b]
Top officials from three administrations describe how crucial lessons were learned and lost, programs launched and canceled, and budgets funded and defunded.
[b][link=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/pandemic-coronavirus-united-states-trump-cdc/608215/]We Were Warned[/link][/b]
When the inevitable inquiry into the government’s response to COVID-19 happens, it will conclude that signs of a coming crisis were everywhere.
[h1][link=https://www.preventionweb.net/news/view/70922]Last year, the U.S. intelligence community warned of a coronavirus pandemic: Will we heed their climate warnings?[/link][/h1] [blockquote]In the absence of a public hearing and release of the U.S. Intelligence Communitys Worldwide Threat Assessment this year, it is instructive to look at last years [link=https://climateandsecurity.org/2019/01/29/climate-risks-in-the-2019-worldwide-threat-assessment-of-the-us-intelligence-community/]assessment[/link] to see what the nations intelligence professionals were predicting. The following passage was particularly striking:[/blockquote] [blockquote]
[i]We assess that the United States and the world will remain vulnerable to the next flu pandemic or largescale outbreak of a contagious disease that could lead to massive rates of death and disability, severely affect the world economy, strain international resources, and increase calls on the United States for support. Although the international community has made tenuous improvements to global health security, these gains may be inadequate to address the challenge of what we anticipate will be more frequent outbreaks of infectious diseases because of rapid unplanned urbanization, prolonged humanitarian crises, human incursion into previously unsettled land, expansion of international travel and trade, and regional climate change.[/i]
[/blockquote]
[i]
[/i]
Get real!
-
Quote from Castlevania
Quote from comet tail
I would like to keep more in savings myself. But since I don’t want to lose money I put it in stocks and junk bonds. Safe bonds pay a pittance.
And they will continue to. Bonds are the worst thing to be in, you will wake up in just a few years and realize, whoops
The post on what’s coming is too long, and frankly so few will even admit it or because they dislike me (not you guys), they will disregard, so I won’t waste my time. I’ll be prepared, though — and it’s going to happen this decade.
Well this is a forum…what do you think is coming? For me I think this short lived recession will pass within 12 months, but the asset inflating they’re doing now will come down hard within this decade. And they won’t be able to inflate it back up will be the real problem. -
In short, strong dollar, “biflation” and then major debasement of the currency. It’s the only way out. The debt to GDP problem of WWII was with a solvent government, and a one time cost. As I’ve said before, [b]it is[/b] different this time, but in the [b][i]bad sense[/i][/b].
-
[link=https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-much-is-a-life-worth%E2%80%88/]https://www.nationalrevie…a-life-worth%E2%80%88/[/link]
Excellent, thought provoking article regarding the cost of lives saved. It addresses most of the questions raised above in an evenhanded, nonpartisan and thoughtful way. Great read.
-
As always, the comments shine, with good and silly examples. This among the best:
“Lousy journalism leads to lousy public policy decisions. You’d think after the Iraq War, the 2008 mortgage-default meltdown, and the Trump-Russia Hoax, American journalists would self-assess and put aside their penchant for childish oversimplifications and drama-infused storytelling, but it’s actually gotten worse with Twitter controlling their brains.”
Nailed it, pBinCA -
Radgrinder,
Thank you. The article you shared answered the question about as well as possible given current knowledge. And as you said it was non partisan. Non partisan is hard to come by these days!
-
Quote from radgrinder
[link=https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-much-is-a-life-worth%E2%80%88/]https://www.nationalrevie…a-life-worth%E2%80%88/[/link]
Excellent, thought provoking article regarding the cost of lives saved. It addresses most of the questions raised above in an evenhanded, nonpartisan and thoughtful way. Great read.
Great read! -
[link=https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/health/university-of-wyoming-analysis-argues-social-distancing-outweighs-alternative-by-5-2-trillion/article_ec26fe2e-ed46-5973-bddf-2e7c044e868e.html]https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/health/university-of-wyoming-analysis-argues-social-distancing-outweighs-alternative-by-5-2-trillion/article_ec26fe2e-ed46-5973-bddf-2e7c044e868e.html[/link]
[b]University of Wyoming analysis: Social distancing outweighs alternative by $5.2 trillion [/b]
[b][/b]
A University of Wyoming analysis found that social distancing efforts to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus outweigh the economic costs of such measures by trillions of dollars, while also saving more than a million lives.
The researchers, led by a UW economist, found that social distancing policies likely do not constitute an overreaction to COVID-19. In a variety of plausible scenarios based on the best available information as of April 3, 2020, we find that the economic benefits of lives saved outweigh the value of the projected losses of GDP by about $5.2 trillion, the authors wrote in article that will be published by a Cambridge University journal.
…the analysis by UW economic Linda Thunstrom and her colleagues indicates that not only will social distancing save lives but that its impact on the countrys economy will be less severe than not social distancing at all. The analysis uses a common epidemiological model to project the diseases spread, and it uses a monetary figure $10 million used by the federal government to assign value to a persons life. The model acknowledges that social distancing will have a more significant impact on the Americas GDP than not instituting the measures, but it still found that overall economic consequences will be better with social distancing.
It projects a multi-trillion dollar benefit from social distancing compared to the country not enacting the measures. It also indicates that more than 1.2 million lives will be saved, both as a direct result of decreased mortality from the disease itself and as a result of the health care system not being overrun by a wave of coronavirus patients.
Based on our … model, the total number of infections is projected to reach 287 million without social distancing and 188 million with social distancing, Thunstrom and her colleagues wrote. When combined with the differential mortality rates when the health system capacity threshold is exceeded versus when not, the difference between the infection curves translates into about 1.24 million lives saved.
-
Impressive. It sounds like the country and its leaders made decisions that not only saved more than a million lives but also had massive economic benefits.
Dergon, does this mean youre voting for Trump now? You just posted a story that places his decision making during this crisis in the top-most echelon of presidents… -
Another example of posting an opinion piece with nothing but assumptions and trying to declare victory. The first assumption is that millions of lives were saved. There is zero point zero evidence that this is the case.
However, it is the most valuable tool in the SDP tool box. It will be used over and over and over. -
Quote from dergon
[link=https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/health/university-of-wyoming-analysis-argues-social-distancing-outweighs-alternative-by-5-2-trillion/article_ec26fe2e-ed46-5973-bddf-2e7c044e868e.html]https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/health/university-of-wyoming-analysis-argues-social-distancing-outweighs-alternative-by-5-2-trillion/article_ec26fe2e-ed46-5973-bddf-2e7c044e868e.html[/link]
[b]University of Wyoming analysis: Social distancing outweighs alternative by $5.2 trillion [/b]
[b] [/b]
A University of Wyoming analysis found that social distancing efforts to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus outweigh the economic costs of such measures by trillions of dollars, while also saving more than a million lives.The researchers, led by a UW economist, found that social distancing policies likely do not constitute an overreaction to COVID-19. In a variety of plausible scenarios based on the best available information as of April 3, 2020, we find that the economic benefits of lives saved outweigh the value of the projected losses of GDP by about $5.2 trillion, the authors wrote in article that will be published by a Cambridge University journal.
…the analysis by UW economic Linda Thunstrom and her colleagues indicates that not only will social distancing save lives but that its impact on the countrys economy will be less severe than not social distancing at all. The analysis uses a common epidemiological model to project the diseases spread, and it uses a monetary figure $10 million used by the federal government to assign value to a persons life. The model acknowledges that social distancing will have a more significant impact on the Americas GDP than not instituting the measures, but it still found that overall economic consequences will be better with social distancing.
It projects a multi-trillion dollar benefit from social distancing compared to the country not enacting the measures. It also indicates that more than 1.2 million lives will be saved, both as a direct result of decreased mortality from the disease itself and as a result of the health care system not being overrun by a wave of coronavirus patients.
Based on our … model, the total number of infections is projected to reach 287 million without social distancing and 188 million with social distancing, Thunstrom and her colleagues wrote. When combined with the differential mortality rates when the health system capacity threshold is exceeded versus when not, the difference between the infection curves translates into about 1.24 million lives saved.
So you can find the actual pre-print: [link=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3561934]https://papers.ssrn.com/s…fm?abstract_id=3561934[/link]
A few points:
1. They estimate the net FINANCIAL cost of social distancing at $7.2 trillion ($13.7T loss with SD, vs $6.5T cost without). In other words, financially the US will be $7.2T worse off (per their calculations).
2. The financial benefit is entirely due to their estimate that SD will save 1.24M lives. They put the value of a life at $10M, so it’s $12.4T saved in value of lives lost (1.24M lives x $10M per), vs $7.2T financial cost. Equals the magical $5.2T benefit. Obviously the $ value of a life isn’t a precise thing, so understand that their entire conclusion rests on that value. They do discuss that some think the $ figure should be adjusted based on age etc, which would change things quite a bit in a disease where the majority of victims are elderly and/or in poor health. Speaking purely in financial terms here, since that’s what this was about.
3. How do they arrive at the conclusion that SD saves 1.2M lives over the next few months? They estimate that without SD 287M in the US will be infected (88% of the population) and 2.2M will die. The death figure is close to the figure in the original Imperial paper. Oddly, this is with an R0 of 2.4. You shouldn’t be able to infect 88% of the population with R0 of 2.4, because you would be at herd immunity well before that (you can overshoot, but looks like not by that much). For the SD group they estimate 188M infected and 0.94M deaths (which, incidentally, would give herd immunity at R0=2.4). The difference in case fatality rate is because they assume that the mortality rate triples if the health care system is overwhelmed, which they assume it will be without controls, but not with. All of these assumptions are questionable, but the main issue is the result of their epidemiological models don’t look reasonable.
Anyway, a quote from the author herself:
“The analysis assumes that the nations economy will begin to open up in the coming months and that, should there be a second wave of coronavirus cases later this year, there will be treatments available to blunt its impact. Thunstrom told the Star-Tribune that if the economy takes longer to reopen or if a second wave is as severe as this current pandemic, then the model would be readjusted and could flip its findings that social distancing is a positive.”
-
This is totally poppycock.
I know people hate talking about it, but the people this “kills”, and actually why this is not that lethal of a pathogen, are the very people that society benefits most from (economically, governmentally) dying. The only people who even theoretically gain (because there would be more room for all manner of jobs and inherited wealth) by keeping the type of person alive that dies here are the politicians via voting block.
Again, it is an uncomfortable reality for most, but the absolute truth. And it’s actually what [i][b]we literally know from history[/b][/i], economic benefit and expansion after plagues is very well documented. -
there’s a good NPR Planet Money podcast about this today. The statistical value of a life. It used to be calculated as just lost wages. Once they figured out a life is worth that $10m figure it made it easier to get safety regulations put through. The OSHA dilemma was if they should make a regulation about putting chemical safety labels on containers. They were not going to do so at first.
-
The article did make me think about something useful though: They assume that there is only one peak, either with or without SD. So, 1 peak without SD causes $6.5T in damage and 2.2M lives. One with with SD causes $13.7T in damage and 0.94M lives. I don’t agree with the results, but that’s their model.
Unfortunately in the US I think we are getting a 2nd peak. Hope I’m wrong, but hard to see herd immunity outside of the hottest spots.
So, two concerns:
1. What is the economic cost of a 2nd shutdown? I worry that companies that managed to survive the first one, likely burning through much of their cash and borrowing ability, will not survive a 2nd shutdown. So, the economic cost could be staggering.
2. Do you just end up with the same # of deaths, spread out a bit more, but massively worse financial situation? This assumes you don’t overwhelm the health care system of course, and that an effective treatment isn’t discovered between the two peaks. Which of course it could be and we should hope it is. -
Do you or anyone have better results in any other study?
There is a trend – bias? – that all the studies showing results similar to the above Univ of Wyoming study are rejected because the results are disliked but no one has presented studies showing something more to the preference of the critics showing a more optimistic outcome. Aren’t there studies showing critics’ outcomes and projected costs in lives and cost? -
Quote from Frumious
Do you or anyone have better results in any other study?
There are no studies. This is not a study. It is assumptions based on bad data. Nothing more.
Now if you want to talk about the analysis of the numbers it’s quite easy to show how the millions of lives saved is a completely made up figure. It assumes two things that go against one another, High R0 and mortality rate.
I have shown over and over why these two do not work together to fit the mortality curves we are seeing. If the R0 is as high as they say we should already have hundreds of thousands of deaths at their predicted CFR. There is no possible way to get deaths in the millions with this virus.
-
The argue how and why the studies that are being done are wrong in their assumptions with the data we do have.
“NYET!” is no discussion of anything.
You have shown nothing at all in any of your posts & when so cornered you fall back to “Yes, there is no data,” and some such tomfoolery. -
The argue how and why the studies that are being done are wrong in their assumptions with the data we do have.
“NYET!” is no discussion of anything.
You have shown nothing at all in any of your posts & when so cornered you fall back to “Yes, there is no data,” and some such tomfoolery. -
Quote from Frumious
Do you or anyone have better results in any other study?
I had forgotten about this. Only two days later and an actual study comes out that is better. I thought I was going to need more patience than this dealing with Frumi. -
Quote from dergon
[link=https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/health/university-of-wyoming-analysis-argues-social-distancing-outweighs-alternative-by-5-2-trillion/article_ec26fe2e-ed46-5973-bddf-2e7c044e868e.html]https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/health/university-of-wyoming-analysis-argues-social-distancing-outweighs-alternative-by-5-2-trillion/article_ec26fe2e-ed46-5973-bddf-2e7c044e868e.html[/link]
[b]University of Wyoming analysis: Social distancing outweighs alternative by $5.2 trillion [/b]
Had a little more time to read the study, and some of their citations.
Main issue is more the way it was reported. Well, and presented by the author too.
Basically they do 2 independent calculations:
1. Financial cost of epidemic with ($13.7T) and without ($6.5T) social distancing. So far so good. So a single peak with SD they estimate causes $7.2T in additional economic damage over no SD. Assumes no 2[sup]nd[/sup] peak in either case, which is a major flaw.
2. They model # of lives saved with SD. They come up with 1.2M. Look, maybe that’s right, maybe it’s not. But in any case most would agree there is a ton of uncertainty there. Certainly not many people think we are going to have 0.94M deaths in this peak in the US as they estimate, although a lower # of deaths would help their argument if you still assume 2.2M deaths without SD.
Then, they take “1.2M” and multiply it by $10M and voila. $12T benefit. The end.
The first problem is the 2[sup]nd[/sup] # is so poorly defined that you can get whatever result you want. Thats garbage. What they should say is, well, what they can say: (1). We estimate the cost at X. Heres why. (2). The characteristics of the disease (R0, etc) are currently not well known. How to value a saved life in economic terms is a matter of some debate. Heres what you get with various estimates for each. Not: There is a benefit. Oh, by the way, if you use different plausible values for some of the parameters the opposite is true. Also if SD results in a 2[sup]nd[/sup] peak, or a larger 2[sup]nd[/sup] peak than otherwise, the opposite may again be true.
Not going to get into calculations of VSL in this post which is already too long, and I’m certainly no expert, except to say that:
There is a U Chicago paper cited in the Wyoming paper that goes into that. They assumed 1.76M lives saved (!) instead of 1.2M, but their benefit of SD varied from $2.4T to $20.3T depending on what estimate of VSL was used (and whether or not it was age-varying or uniform across all ages).
One of the things I really dislike about the Wyoming preprint, and hope is fixed before it is in final form, is that they cite the Chicago paper, mention that it looked at age-varying VSL, and then say that it still showed an $8T benefit (which it does, for one particular VSL estimate). What they leave out is that had they (Wyoming) used the same age-varying VSL they would have come up with a net cost, not benefit to SD (because Wyoming used 1.2M deaths vs Chicago 1.76M deaths). Thats just crap in an academic publication. Be open and honest. Say what you can actually say.
-
I have likened it to the socialist/communist/feudalist system, where because of the fact that you never know when the central authority is going to just come and take your work, what’s the point in starting up a business (the equivalent here is, “Oh, second wave! Shutdown. Oh, 3rd wave, more disruption!”)? This is [b]exactly [/b]the scenario set up by these evil, evil people. And yes, they are evil — they have told you this is their plan, out loud, already. Who withstands this? The huge corporate players that have links to the government, lawyers, can withstand it all. You don’t think they all know this?
So, what happens? The small to mid range businesses have now been effectively crushed. This creates greater wealth disparity and a locking out of the common man, creeping more and more towards the welfare category. You’d think that the lefties on here, who claim to care about such topics, would understand this and join our protestation. Alas, no, there is no truth in them. -
The political pressure in the decision making process is immense. I am getting tired of hearing governors say they are using “science” as their sign posts in the process. That is such an obvious dig at one person and deserved I might add.
While I applaud the use of science in decision making, it must be vetted properly. There have been many wrong assumptions up until this point. The media scientists are having the first word and then they shout down and ridicule others with different ideas. It reminds me of expert plaintiff witnesses. Who is a lay person to believe? -
Quote from ADHD
The political pressure in the decision making process is immense. I am getting tired of hearing governors say they are using “science” as their sign posts in the process. That is such an obvious dig at one person and deserved I might add.
While I applaud the use of science in decision making, it must be vetted properly. There have been many wrong assumptions up until this point. The media scientists are having the first word and then they shout down and ridicule others with different ideas. It reminds me of expert plaintiff witnesses. Who is a lay person to believe?
One does have to enjoy it.
HCQ – no real RCT, anecdotal evidence this way and that. Real effectiveness unknown, Trump touts it. CNN/MSNBC blitz it with “Trump lies, no science behind Trump claims, etc.”
Remdesivir – no real RCT, anecdotal evidence this way and that. Real effectiveness unknown, Trump doesn’t really mention it. CNN/MSNBC blitz it with “patients getting Remdesivir recovering rapidly, best drug ever!” stories.
HCQ is for Republicans, Remdesivir is for Democrats. The scientific proof for both is currently about the same. One just costs 10 cents a treatment, the other $1000. The reaction depends on the political bias of your news source. -
Quote from dergon
Based on our … model, the total number of infections is projected to reach 287 million without social distancing and 188 million with social distancing, Thunstrom and her colleagues wrote. When combined with the differential mortality rates when the health system capacity threshold is exceeded versus when not, the difference between the infection curves translates into about 1.24 million lives saved.
The Stanford study posted in the other threads throws this calculation right out the window. You can;t save lives that were never in danger.
However, if you can convince people you did it is a political coup.
I’ll quote Ghost Busters again. “Mayor, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters!” -
ADHD confirming what all of us have said, literally every position and prediction we have made is spot on. Yes, we told all of you ahead of time. We must be aliens with more brain power than even the smartest democrat operative.
-
Quote from ADHD
Quote from dergon
Based on our … model, the total number of infections is projected to reach 287 million without social distancing and 188 million with social distancing, Thunstrom and her colleagues wrote. When combined with the differential mortality rates when the health system capacity threshold is exceeded versus when not, the difference between the infection curves translates into about 1.24 million lives saved.
The Stanford study posted in the other threads throws this calculation right out the window. You can’t save lives that were never in danger.
However, if you can convince people you did it is a political coup.
I’ll quote Ghost Busters again. “Mayor, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters!”
ADHD did a nice job here. RIP. -
Wow, I come from out of the casket to return to this place, and amazingly the people with sense took a stand … looks like those circle jerks from Off Politics are on their heels!
-
Quote from dergon
[link=https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/health/university-of-wyoming-analysis-argues-social-distancing-outweighs-alternative-by-5-2-trillion/article_ec26fe2e-ed46-5973-bddf-2e7c044e868e.html]https://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/health/university-of-wyoming-analysis-argues-social-distancing-outweighs-alternative-by-5-2-trillion/article_ec26fe2e-ed46-5973-bddf-2e7c044e868e.html[/link]
Based on our … model, the total number of infections is projected to reach 287 million without social distancing and 188 million with social distancing, Thunstrom and her colleagues wrote. When combined with the differential mortality rates when the health system capacity threshold is exceeded versus when not, the difference between the infection curves translates into about 1.24 million lives saved.
I was looking around for a post I made regarding the No Labels organization that sponsors the Problem Solvers caucus and I found this gem. -
Reopening the economy will offset the cost of vaccination
-
Damage I am seeing from social changes in children not going to school and parents who have to work outside the home with no home care options is astronomically higher than any life saved. The reality for most middle and lower classes is horrible with kids home and nobody to watch them. The damages from this will be seen in about 10 years and are far more than economic. We seem to placing a higher value on adults continuing their existence than the development and safety of the young school age population. Just shows how out of touch most politicians are with the average working family. They can still send their kids to private school, day care, or have an at home family member. Yes I’m pissed about this btw.
-
Yes AKO, lefties are a fraud and the real “science deniers,” in actuality.
-
Quote from AKOMAN
Damage I am seeing from social changes in children not going to school and parents who have to work outside the home with no home care options is astronomically higher than any life saved. The reality for most middle and lower classes is horrible with kids home and nobody to watch them. The damages from this will be seen in about 10 years and are far more than economic. [b]We seem to placing a higher value on adults continuing their existence than the development and safety of the young school age population.[/b] Just shows how out of touch most politicians are with the average working family. They can still send their kids to private school, day care, or have an at home family member. Yes I’m pissed about this btw.
Not just adults. Old, sick ones.
I did the math on the other thread but all humans who don’t live in a long term care facility have a 99.7-99.9% survival meaning anyone who is going to work each day likely has a > 99.9% survival.
Kids and young people – the ones we are supposed to protect and make the world better for – have been utterly devastated by our covid response. -
And they said I can’t do risk assessment, since I’m in the 99.9%ile of healthy people, given BMI, body fat and diet/supplementation.
-
I agree that the harm to kids especially but also to most people who were not at high risk from covid has been too great. I am not trying to deny the severity of the virus, but that is still my opinion. I hope this ends and that this is the last pandemic in my life time, but if it does happen again I hope the response is not as detrimental. It will be interesting to look back at differences in how countries responded and the long term impact on the economy and physical and mental health of their respective populations.
-
Before we can bemoan our fractured response to a novel dangerous pathogen we need to take responsibility for dismantling agencies who had a memory of a response in prior infections and had a roadmap of response, take responsibility for fractured beliefs, political and medical that existed in a fantasy world of “nothing to see here…,” responsibility for monetizing disinformation and people like Atlas who argued against any sort of mitigation response and those who fatalistically said, “The virus will do what the virus does” rationalizing a non response to a dangerous pathogen. In March we had no effin idea how dangerous COVID COVID could be to our children and the danger of spread in schools.
And many more arguments about how the hell are we supposed to have a rational response to the next pandemic when our best response is daily shooting ourselves in the foot with contradictory information bubbles that exist in fantasy only. I mean masks are anti-freedom? Anti-American? Unmanly?
Where was the cogent rational response since January to now? A whole year wasted on stupidity causing lives to be thrown away for politics.
One hopes this lesson is repeating stupidity will not work against the next pandemic.
-
I don’t think anyone faults the response in March. I think people are upset now about things like school closures and outdoor dining bans that go against the science. We’ve had 10 months to work on nuance to our policies and most states are still using machetes when they should be using scalpels.
-
With all the misinformation, disinformation & political & monetary motives spreading such along with ideas of frail masculinity being injured by wearing a mask, etc, & authorities like Atlas arguing for unmitigated response to a not dangerous pathogen, what & where was an organized response based on science supposed to exist? 1 year later & we still hear arguments against masks as if masks are unmanly anti-American as well as useless against spreading pathogens.
Where is the rational plan & response I ask?
-
Frumi, it will be here in two weeks.
-
Drove behind a brand new Yukon today with a bunch of right wing propaganda stickers neatly placed over the hatchback; one of which was Trump/Pence.
And a vanity license plate: “nomasks”.
Now there is commitment. -
To OP. In the US, many healthcare/drug decisions area based on quality adjusted life year valued at approximately $100,000. This means approximately $8 million per full life. So yes, we already pay that much which is why drugs, hospitals, and specialists can make so much more money in the United States compared to other countries.
-
Quote from radgrinder
Quote from comet tail
If interest rates weren’t so low maybe everyone could keep bigger emergency funds instead of borrowing to the hilt. So the government/Fed ends up becoming everyone’s emergency fund.
Yes. In an odd way, with interest rates this low, businesses are heavily incentivized to simply borrow, borrow, borrow and load up on cheap debt.
The most insidious form being stock buy backs to prop up their share prices.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from MSK/SW
Ezekiel Emmanuel has published JAMA and other articles on the QALY concept, with strong, supportive comments. He is on record for the age cutoff of 75 for initiation of limited treatments, and has stated that mind/cognitive decline after 75 is so much below basic thresholds that it should be considered, well, not meriting ethical protections, to state it carefully. He is Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, a key advisor for the Obama campaigns/admin. and for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and now for Joe Biden’s campaign (age 77, I think). I am over 60, and for many reasons, ethical, moral, religious (and personal) reject his paradigm.
Let’s see if EE ends up following his own advice.
-
Another globalist denigrating the “useless eateres” like Gates. They have contempt for most and “know better” and the funnier part, as you suggest, is that they never hold themselves accountable to their own disgusting “principles.”
-
-
-
