Imperial College finds that moderate social distancing reduces COVID death by about 12,000. We also expect less traffic deaths and less additional HIV death. Lockdown will also cause more malnutrition, tuberculosis and malaria, leading to a net benefit of 6,700 avoided deaths
The costs are: 1) shut down schools which leads to long-term lower child productivity. Since each extra school year increases wages by 12%, school lockdown cost is $5.2 billion (almost one year GDP) — the present value of income loss for 6 million children over the next
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
Notice, this is only an estimate of the cost of the recent climate policies (i.e. going to 70% in 2030) and their increase in climate impacts,
here from my Danish article berlingske.dk/kronikker/bjoe….
You would imagine these 11,000 scientists at least were able to put together a coherent argument for why there is "an emergency"
They don't — they just ramble what seems like 1970s limits-to-growth thoughts
Read the paper
It is sad bbc.com/news/science-e…
They show some graphs and literally worry about how people are being better off
The crucial graphs are just "linked at least in part to climate change"
Can't make this up
Compare scientists' concerns with people who are actually faced with the world's big problems
From the largest UN poll of global priorities: of almost 10m people, they — not surprisingly — care about education, health, jobs, no corruption and nutrition
Now, let's get this clear: 1) Global warming is real, and 2) The research, they reference, looks good and useful, finding a better estimate for number of people potentially vulnerable to sea level rise nature.com/articles/s4146…
Also kudos to Climate Central for making almost all of the data available online — here you can see at risk for flooding for 2050
(the only missing visualization is for 2020/today, as will become clear below)
They do include that info in academic article coastal.climatecentral.org