Bjorn LomborgVarmennettu tili

"a moderate lockdown (social restrictions) will likely reduce the death toll by 16,350". You go on to find economic & social impacts over 5 years would lead to an even greater loss of life. Do you then conclude that these need to be urgently mitigated?

Greater lost life-years consequence of the lockdown, so baked-into the decision You lockdown, get fewer dead from corona+HIV+traffic, more from malnutrition+TB+malaria U suggest to pay $12bn for more life-years lost, and then pay even more to avoid malnutrition+TB+malaria?

My point here, is that you consider it out of scope. Your job is to show innaction & immediate deaths is "cheaper" than action. Then you stop and conclude it's better predominately older people die now. To be fair, that's what some governments have clearly concluded also.

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

I agree this & perhaps most of your work is motivated by finding what's best. But best for what? Best for the maintenance of a system that can produce such inequalities and harm? Because you cannot consider radical changes to it.