Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This is a quick study, so clearly not last word. The long-term suppression is six months, and then re-opening. The breaking-scenario (towards Sweden) envisions an opening back, accepting a much higher death rate (12,400 dead vs 199 dead) but much smaller long-term hit to economy
The study also includes extra health care costs from more infection but not extra costs from closed schools, less learning, more social stress etc. The total cost difference is apparently 660B NOK, or $64B over 10 years (from table 2-7 and 4-2) — about $12K/person
Ok - so human life first Norway - cash first Sweden - correct?
Life cost in long term is highly correlated with economy growth. Then, short term decision will affect also the number of deaths in long term. It's not only money. Everything is affected.
Did they include a price on life in their analysis? Is it $12K/pp?
It is about calculating the credit sum that a society probably needs to swallow due to this virus. The burden on future generations must be estimated, calm down.
The concern with framing this equation as “number of deaths versus the economy” is that 1) it assumes, falsely in my opinion, a binary choice between the two, 2) it has horrible optics and, 3) it asks people to judge, unfairly, how much a life is worth.
What is about the death toll from increased suicide rates likely to be caused by a recession? The longer the lockdown, the higher this death toll is to be expected (not saying this are the only psychsocial costs of a longer lockdown)? Is this considered?
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
