The health-wealth tradeoff of lockdowns is still hotly debated. Here are some thoughts that may help untangle the issues. 1/17 #EconTwitter #EpiTwitter
Figure courtesy of @luismbcabral
Let's start with concept of tradeoffs. With aggregate societal wealth and health on the axes, we can show all combinations that we can achieve though different policies. All points in purple region are feasible, those outside it are not. Which point should we choose? 2/17
Since society values both health and wealth, from any starting point, we want to move in North-East direction. When making a move, we say that there is a tradeoff if gaining more health necessarily means giving up some wealth. 3/17
It can never be optimal to stay at an interior point like E, because we can get both more wealth AND more health by moving to points like G or F on the frontier. So at an interior point like E, there may be no tradeoffs at all. We can find policies to improve BOTH. 4/17
At extremes with 100% or 0% lockdown (like points A and C or nearby points), we're on frontier but again may be able to get both richer and healthier. But in intermediate cases, like G and F, there is necessarily a tradeoff. 5/17
To get more wealth, say move from G to F, we need to move along frontier and give up some health. So in this region, there is a health-wealth tradeoff. What does this mean and is it useful for choosing which policy to pursue? I don't think so and this is why. 6/17
First, in practice we are very unlikely to be on the frontier, but rather at an interior point like E. So rather than obsess about the slope of the frontier (which is negative when there are tradeoffs), we should try to get to the frontier. 7/17
Second, even if we were on the frontier and thus facing tradeoffs, it tells us nothing about optimal policy to trade off health and wealth over time. Disease and economy have complicated intertwined dynamics so the optimal policy across epidemic is very complicated. 8/17
To get to a point "in the middle" of the health-wealth frontier does not mean we need a policy that treats health and wealth "equally" at each point in time. How much we must suppress the disease depends on where we are in the epidemic. And so it changes over time. 9/17
Consider simple SIR epidemic model with costly social distancing measures. The plot shows path of per-period health costs versus mitigation costs over time of an optimal policy that maximizes overall social welfare. Plot idea by @t0nyyates 10/17
We start at point like x in pre-infection world, with no expenditures on restricting disease spread and no health impacts of infection. If epidemic does not occur, we stay at x forever. But as infection sets in, health outcomes deteriorate and mitigation costs are incurred. 11/17
We see this by following lower part of curve that takes us to point y. Note that this movement involves both higher economic harm and worse health outcomes. As infection rises, causing morbidity and mortality, so do necessary economic damage to control disease. 12/17
Once point y is reached at peak of epidemic, things improve and we move back to starting point x. This involves decreasing infection levels and less damage caused by economic restrictions. Note that inbound path has higher wealth for any level of health than outbound path. 13/17
This means that it's optimal to impose tighter restrictions before the peak than after the peak, all else equal. One can think of the additional economic harm at the early stages as an investment in better future health and economic outcomes. 14/17
In summary: (1) there may be tradeoffs when economic and public health policies have already taken us to the frontier. Short of this, expect it to be possible to improve both health and wealth somewhat. 15/17
(2) even if we know which frontier point we want to reach, it tells us little about good policy. Health-wealth frontier is static concept; controlling disease and economy is intrinsically dynamic in nature. Optimal path has tricky intertemporal and intra-temporal tradeoffs. 16/17
The analysis of the frontier is taken from @luismbcabral's excellent new textbook that is freely available at luiscabral.net/economics/book… Please share! 17/17

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Flavio Toxvaerd

Flavio Toxvaerd Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @toxvaerd1

12 Nov 20
I've been trying for some time to find a killer metaphor for why it's worth taking a short-term economic hit to better control the epidemic and thereby improve both future health and increase future economic prosperity. 1/5
#EconTwitter #EpiTwitter
Most people immediately recognise static tradeoffs such as "more of one thing means less of another thing". That's why the infamous "lives versus the economy" has gained such traction in the public debate. 2/5
Right now we face important "inter-temporal" tradeoffs. This means we must trade off costs and benefits today versus costs and benefits tomorrow. The epidemic and the economy are both dynamic objects, changing over time as we act in different ways, and they are intertwined. 3/5
Read 5 tweets
11 Nov 20
The UK government is flying blind, introducing policies without proper prior assessment of their likely impact on the epidemic or the economy. This is now completely clear. Below I'll go through what we now know.
#EconTwitter #lockdown 1/15
On Oct 18, I wrote a long thread about the misalignment between disease control advice received by the government from SAGE and the economic advice received by the Treasury. 2/15
I pointed out that disjointed advice was just not useful and that integrated economic-epidemiological analysis was badly needed. These are very complicated issues and we cannot afford to wing it and hope for the best. 3/15
Read 16 tweets
11 Nov 20
The Danish Economic Council’s recent report contains an entire 100 page chapter on economics and epidemiology, complete with self-contained intro to epi models and a review of the new literature. #econtwitter @t0nyyates @DORsSekretariat @DalgaardCarl 1/3
In addition, it contains a number of different policy experiments and a very thorough discussion of the interaction of the economy and the virus. This is seriously impressive policy work and a model for how things can be done. 2/3
Notably, this body is set up to give unbiased, un-politicised advise to guide policy and inform the public. There’s no reason we cannot have a body doing that kind of valuable work in the UK. Who will step up and back such an initiative? 3/3
Read 4 tweets
1 Nov 20
I think they made two early tactical errors that made it difficult to formulate a comprehensive strategy. (1) lack of early and widespread random texting meant they didn’t understand the scale of the problem. They had only dim idea of speed of spread and of asymptomatic ratio.
(2) by design, they set up silos of expertise that seem to have had minimal mutual communication and coordination. Each would give independent advice on different aspects, and each largely ignoring effects of recommendations on other domain.
I do not want to ignore the tactical missteps as I think they are sufficiently legio to explain many of our problems, even if we disregard the apparent lack of strategy.
Read 8 tweets
1 Nov 20
In discussing control measures, many people think in terms of intratemporal tradeoffs (health vs wealth), while most economists think also about the intertemporal tradeoffs (health AND wealth today vs health AND wealth tomorrow). 1/17

#EconTwitter #EpiTwitter #lockdowns
I think the latter are more important than the former, but very difficult to articulate in a punchy way. What also complicates things is that we face intertwined disease and economic dynamics. 2/17
Leaving aside disease dynamics, shocks to the economy have complicated effects. Amplification effects can lead shocks to one part of economy to influence other parts and then back again. Propagation effects mean that shocks have additional impact over time. 3/17
Read 17 tweets
30 Oct 20
It now appears that infection numbers are worse than the “worst case scenario”. What does that mean and does this indicate a failure of the policies that the government has put in place?
1/10
#EconTwitter #epitwitter
bbc.co.uk/news/health-54…
Let’s recall what the “reasonable worst case scenario” means. This is the outcome that epidemiologists think will occur when (i) people do not engage in ANY spontaneous behaviour change to protect themselves and (ii) government imposes NO restrictions on social interactions.
2/10
In other words, it’s what one can predict based solely on biological considerations, knowledge of the disease, environmental factors, population density etc. It intentionally ignores behaviour and policy.
3/10
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!