COVID and the trade-off

At the end of that post, I concluded the following things. First, COVID-19 has a much higher mortality rate than flu.

Second, without containment it would have increased the annual mortality rates of most countries by over 80%.

Third, containment has worked in driving down potential deaths from millions to hundreds of thousands (unfortunately over a million so far).

Fourth, because most governments were unprepared and lacked sufficient healthcare facilities, they were forced into varying degrees of lockdowns, bringing the world economy to a standstill.

Fifth, the more severe the lockdown and the more health facilities available means generally that there will be fewer deaths; and

sixth, the ‘lockdown lite’ approach risks more deaths without offering a stronger economy as a trade-off.

Michael Roberts Blog

Last April, as the coronavirus pandemic took off, I ventured into an analysis of its health and economic impact.  As I said at the time, “It is a risky thing to start analysing the COVID stats and coming up with some conclusions at this still early stage of the pandemic.  It is even riskier for an economist to delve into areas beyond his or her supposed expertise.  But after looking at myriads of articles, heaps of data and lots of presentations by people who ought to know what they are talking about, I cannot resist putting my dollar on the table.”

I think it is worth rereading that post, because, looking back, I think my analysis has held up pretty well six months later. At the end of that post, I concluded the following things.  First, COVID-19 has a much higher mortality rate than flu.  Second, without containment it…

View original post 2,002 more words

2 responses

  1. Se v glavnem ne strinjam s priznanim ekonomistom Robertsom.

    First, COVID-19 has a much higher mortality rate than flu.

    Npr. ameriški CDC ima ocene za IFR

    0-19 years: 0.00003
    20-49 years: 0.0002
    50-69 years: 0.005
    70+ years: 0.054

    kar pomeni, da je za populacijo po 50 (pa verjetno tudi pod 60) to veliko manj nevarno kot gripa.
    Tudi se ve, katere skupine so najbolj ranljive in ostane ‘le’ še, da se jih primerno zaščiti.

    Second, without containment it would have increased the annual mortality rates of most countries by over 80%.

    Zelo pretirana številka, mnoge afriške države niso storile tako rekoč nič, in imajo zelo malo smrti iz naslova COVID-19. Pa tudi če gremo proti severu, Švedska s svojimi milimi ukrepi bi morda imeli smrtnost večjo za 1% ali 2% (pozor, smrtnost je najbolje računati na konstanto, recimo število smrti na 100.000, in ne na državo, ker se že v parih letos lahko pozna prirstek smrti zaradi prirastka prebivalstva). Belorusija in predvsem Japonska imata pasploh nizke številke.

    Third, containment has worked in driving down potential deaths from millions to hundreds of thousands (unfortunately over a million so far).

    Ne vem, največ smrti je bilo tam, kjer so bili ukrepi zelo strogi (UK, Belgija, ZDA (New York), Španija)

    Fourth, because most governments were unprepared and lacked sufficient healthcare facilities, they were forced into varying degrees of lockdowns, bringing the world economy to a standstill.

    Kje pa je cost-benefit analiza?

    Fifth, the more severe the lockdown and the more health facilities available means generally that there will be fewer deaths;

    Kaj pa je ‘exit strategy’? Bomo sedaj do konca življenja živeli v takih razmerah?
    Kdor računa na cepivo, naj omenim, da za sorodne korona viruse so vložili kar nekaj napora že prej, pa brez uspeha. Tudi ni cepiva za HIV. Poleg tega bo uvedba cepljenja zelo tvegana, ker se ne bo še vedelo za vse stranske posledice.

    sixth, the ‘lockdown lite’ approach risks more deaths without offering a stronger economy as a trade-off.

    To je sklep iz primera Švedske? Kaj pa če je vzrok težav v gospodarstvu povezan s Korono krizo v sosednjih državah in generalno po svetu?

  2. Še en katastrofičen scenarij temelječ na “flawed statistics”, tj. tako vprašljivih okužbah (na osnovi false positives PCR testov do smrti “s Covid-19”, pa neupoštevanja back-ground immunity populacije, ki je 80% in več, …). Ter, kot pravi zgoraj Darko Mulej, brez cost -benefit analize. Če še pričakijem, da to spusti medicinski statistik, ampak ekonomist…?!?!.

    In pa na modelu seveda, kot pri globalnem segrevanju.

    Katastrofične scenarije delamo na modelih, nihče se pa ne vpraša ali predpostavke teh modelov, podatkovna osnova in na njih temelječi mehanizmi res ustrezajo.

    Zanimivo, da Ioannides kot vodeči medicinski statistik ne deli Robertsovih zaključkov?

    To, “na hitro modeliranje” je v zadnjih desetletjih naredilo svetu neskončno škodo. Stvar se nadaljuje iz. področja na področje (ekonomija, podnebje , medicina,..) vse z isto posledico strašenja in stiskanja populacije. Čedalje bolj se sprašujem ali je to slučajno?.

    Robertsov post je čisti poden (trditev po tem, ko sem ga prebral). Žal.

    Me zanima , zakaj si ta prispevek , dal na blog?. Ker se z njim strinjaš ali ker želiš vzpodbuditi debato? Ali pa da v odzivu (komentarjih) na ta post izplava ven tisti del resnie, ki je za politiko še prevroč, da bi ga direktno (osebno) lansiral v javnost?

%d bloggers like this: