Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
That sounds startling. Calous. But it's mainstream economics. And it is incredibly cavalier with assumptions. Not just in terms of mortality now but morbidy longer term. What if people are sicker for longer? What if your assumptions are erroneous?
These are all great considerations, and we do discuss some of these as sensitivity But given the incredible difference between the costs and benefits, it will be almost impossible to make the lockdown a good use of resources
I am surprised you would say "Your job is to show innaction & immediate deaths is "cheaper" than action" That just wrong. We're trying to find what works best I would encourage you to try to show other parameter choices that would show a lockdown is a great idea for Malawi
That would help the conversation forward, and also help Malawi (and Ghana and other countries) And it would also be helpful to hear your reply to why it wouldn't be better first to help the people with HIV, where we can avoid more deaths at 4,000th the cost
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
