Lloyd's a billionaire and Senior Chairman at Goldman Sachs. He could easily employ a team of actuaries, biostatisticians, economists, epidemiologists, hospitalists, infectologists, and statisticians to price out various cost/benefit scenarios.
But he won't, because...
/1
But he won't, because...
/1
...the economic numbers blow up. Let's do a thought experiment. Assume:
(a) we still do enough social distancing to reduce infection rates by a whopping 75%;
(b) only 20% of infected people need health care services, and only 30% of those need an ICU.
What happens then?
/2
(a) we still do enough social distancing to reduce infection rates by a whopping 75%;
(b) only 20% of infected people need health care services, and only 30% of those need an ICU.
What happens then?
/2
The healthcare system collapses. Consider this article in the NEJM today: nejm.org/doi/full/10.10…
What I described above is the "severe" scenario. We'd have 3,840,000 patients needing to use 85,000 ICU beds, 160,000 ventilators, and 25,000 respiratory therapists (per shift).
/3
What I described above is the "severe" scenario. We'd have 3,840,000 patients needing to use 85,000 ICU beds, 160,000 ventilators, and 25,000 respiratory therapists (per shift).
/3
"Restart the economy" people could do the math on "what does it cost the economy if over 3 million people need intensive care but can't get it?" but, of course, they won't, because using any reasonable value of a statistical life (VSL) puts that cost well into the trillions.
/4
/4
So if we follow Lloyd's advice we're already at *trillions* of dollars in damage, and that's with the rosy assumption we cut the infection rate by 75% and only 6% of infections need intensive care—and that's looking at just the ICU issue, and not issues like downstream effects./5
In short, "restart the economy" is not just callous and cruel, it is bad economics. It is another form of the dangerously wrong assumption that Covid-19 is like the flu. It is not. It is tsunami of pneumonia, respiratory failure, and death.
/end
/end
Like I said in the thread above: anyone making the economic argument to do less needs to show some math. A 75% reduction in the infection rate of Covid-19 still means >3 million people need intensive care but won't get it. What's the economic cost of that?
Every one of these "restart the economy" arguments is based on a completely unrealistic estimate about the prevalence and severity of COVID-19.
It's like saying "the county fair must go on!" while a tornado is approaching. The damage would be massive.
It's like saying "the county fair must go on!" while a tornado is approaching. The damage would be massive.
Nope, because pricing the "cost" of "over 1 million dead, over 3 million needing critical care but not getting it, over 20% of cops, firefighters, teachers, nurses, and doctors sickened" produces figures with far more zeros than a partial work stoppage.
