Read on Twitter
Was locking down Australia the right decision to minimise COVID-19's impact? Lets see.
Please stop reading if you have a emotional take on COVID management. I understand ! #COVID19au #COVID19Vic
(Thread)
Please stop reading if you have a emotional take on COVID management. I understand ! #COVID19au #COVID19Vic (Thread)
Disclaimer first - I am not arguing the efficacy (or otherwise) of lockdowns but thanks to Sweden, we now have a pretty good idea of expected mortality when COVID-19 spreads without forced intervention.
With a population of 10.3 Million people, Sweden's total death count from COVID-19 is likely to stall at 6000. Unlike its neighbours, Sweden has not observed a second wave and its daily COVID-19 deaths are now almost zero.
Based on Sweden's numbers, had Australia not locked down then with a population 25 million its reasonable to assume that there would've been 15000 deaths at most. For context the death toll in Australia is 255 at the time of this tweet and Victoria state is in Stage 4 lock down.
The proportionality between Australian and Sweden is strongly justified because both countries exhibit supreme standards of healthcare, a well educated population and effective functional governments.
As advanced society we value both lives and lifestyles. If the cost of saving a person's life exceeds the value they contribute, we regrettably forego such costs.
In Australia, the statistical value of life developed under aegis of Work Health & Safety Act, is 4.2 million dollars (2014).
You can read about SVL straight from the Australian government here https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Value_of_Statistical_Life_guidance_note.pdf
You can read about SVL straight from the Australian government here https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Value_of_Statistical_Life_guidance_note.pdf
The purpose of life's statistical value is to help decision makers identify whether costs of proposed health and safety measures are commensurate with the value of lives such measures are expected to save.
For example if a dedicated bikeway (or cycleway) costs 50 million dollars but only saves 10 people during the project's lifetime, then its not worth building because 50 million > 42 (10x4.2) million.
It may seem utterly inhuman to treat lives this way but such decisions are made with unblinking regularity every other day.
So coming back to Australia, what value would saving 15000 lives provide? The answer is 63 Billion Australian Dollars (15000 x 4.2 million).
So coming back to Australia, what value would saving 15000 lives provide? The answer is 63 Billion Australian Dollars (15000 x 4.2 million).
In reality, this number will be even lower.
Why? Because the statistical value reflects the difference between unnatural death and median lifespan.
Why? Because the statistical value reflects the difference between unnatural death and median lifespan.
Because most COVID-19 victims are quite old and have already lived majority of their life, the difference between COVID-19 caused fatality and median lifespan would be smaller (and in some cases even negative).
Now for even harder question..
How much did Australia pay to save 15000 lives?
Known from public sources that we spent 60 Billion dollars of direct stimulus + 200 Billion dollars in GDP contraction from lock-downs for a bumper total of 260 Billion Australian Dollars.
How much did Australia pay to save 15000 lives?
Known from public sources that we spent 60 Billion dollars of direct stimulus + 200 Billion dollars in GDP contraction from lock-downs for a bumper total of 260 Billion Australian Dollars.
To be fair I do realise that GDP loss isn't Australia's fault alone because many countries restricted travel resulting in loss of tourism, education etc but the costs borne are massive nonetheless.
Was shutting down the economy for 15000 lives justified? Perhaps - if early mortality models were to be believed.
However after watching Sweden in real time these models have proved to be nothing but hokum.
However after watching Sweden in real time these models have proved to be nothing but hokum.
At this point its becoming clear that we lost 260 Billion dollars to save 60 Billion dollars value worth of lives.
May be our politicians now have an opportunity to mend their unrelenting and frankly authoritarian ways and fall back to everyday decision making without panic. https://twitter.com/DanielAndrewsMP/status/1290595771482423297?s=20
If the logic behind foregoing costs for saving a few young lives is acceptable, then does that logic become invalid when possibility of mass grieving occurs?
Are we okay to cry alone but not cry at the same time as our neighbour?
/Finish
Are we okay to cry alone but not cry at the same time as our neighbour?
/Finish
P.S.
I promise to delete this thread if Sweden implements a lockdown or their death toll exceeds 6000 by a reasonable margin.
I promise to delete this thread if Sweden implements a lockdown or their death toll exceeds 6000 by a reasonable margin.
P.P.S : Incase someone miscontrues this thread as me advocating for 15000 deaths, let me make it clear that I'm only trying to point out methodical inconsistency in government's approach, which was likely driven by early modelling.
