- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 341
- Location
- Nevada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
This article from two professors at the University of Chicago and Stanford University presents an interesting perspective regarding balancing COVID restrictions and economic costs.
"The idea that America has incurred larger losses from COVID than any other nation has been widely repeated, but it"s not true. In reality, the United States has incurred smaller COVID losses than many other countries often cast as role models, once the total cost of the disease in both lost lives and economic activity is correctly measured and taken into account. A truly scientific approach to evaluating COVID policy relies on quantification of the tradeoffs involved, as opposed to only considering health losses."
"Doing so does not trivialize human life but acknowledges - as all of us must - that saving lives at any cost is not practical nor desirable."
"Consider a somewhat extreme hypothetical example. Over 40,000 people die on U.S. roads each year, yet we don"t shut down highways. Instead of closing them -and losing all the economic benefits they provide - the government manages but does not eliminate the risks from bad drivers by regulating speed limits, enforcing DUI laws, and requiring people to have licenses to drive. Put differently, closing roads would entail a loss from prevention that would be higher than the value of the lives saved."
"Therefore, measuring the total loss from COVID correctly, President Trump"s overall strategy of minimizing total losses by balancing the costs of preventive measures against health losses seems prudent. In addition, the president"s efforts to reduce future total losses globally by investing heavily in cheaper forms of prevention such as better treatments and faster vaccine development - rather than focusing on economically costly shutdowns - seems desirable."
In spite of all the politicization of this issue, it is obvious that it is not as simple as the campaign ads and MSM reporters would like you to believe.
Coronavirus Policy & Economic Costs: A Scientific Approach to Evaluation | National Review
"The idea that America has incurred larger losses from COVID than any other nation has been widely repeated, but it"s not true. In reality, the United States has incurred smaller COVID losses than many other countries often cast as role models, once the total cost of the disease in both lost lives and economic activity is correctly measured and taken into account. A truly scientific approach to evaluating COVID policy relies on quantification of the tradeoffs involved, as opposed to only considering health losses."
"Doing so does not trivialize human life but acknowledges - as all of us must - that saving lives at any cost is not practical nor desirable."
"Consider a somewhat extreme hypothetical example. Over 40,000 people die on U.S. roads each year, yet we don"t shut down highways. Instead of closing them -and losing all the economic benefits they provide - the government manages but does not eliminate the risks from bad drivers by regulating speed limits, enforcing DUI laws, and requiring people to have licenses to drive. Put differently, closing roads would entail a loss from prevention that would be higher than the value of the lives saved."
"Therefore, measuring the total loss from COVID correctly, President Trump"s overall strategy of minimizing total losses by balancing the costs of preventive measures against health losses seems prudent. In addition, the president"s efforts to reduce future total losses globally by investing heavily in cheaper forms of prevention such as better treatments and faster vaccine development - rather than focusing on economically costly shutdowns - seems desirable."
In spite of all the politicization of this issue, it is obvious that it is not as simple as the campaign ads and MSM reporters would like you to believe.
Coronavirus Policy & Economic Costs: A Scientific Approach to Evaluation | National Review