I don’t do again of the envelope calculations, largely as a result of the hurt of a foul estimate might be worse than the hurt of no estimate. A tough guess can be biased in methods we can not probably predict. That is acutely true in a pandemic, the place educational work is being quoted out of context, mentioned on Fox Information, and folks drink fish tank cleaner in consequence.

Apparently undeterred, the Incidental Economist weblog has printed a bit trying to calculate the cost-effectiveness of ‘flattening the curve’, a catch-all phrase for the assorted public well being preventive approaches being utilized to scale back transmission and keep away from the collapse of well being techniques globally because of the coronavirus pandemic. Whereas I applaud the authors’ try and carry the instruments of cost-effectiveness evaluation to the present dialogue, their evaluation is proscribed, and sadly will affirm many individuals’s worst suspicions in regards to the software of economics to points in well being.

Well being losses

To get into specifics, the authors estimate a mean QALY loss by subtracting median affected person age at loss of life from COVID-19 from life expectancy, making use of a tough blanket adjustment for high quality of life. This method additionally assumes non-fatal circumstances incur no well being loss. Well being professionals have been eager to level out that acute respiratory misery requires physiotherapy and might have lengthy lasting results on affected person respiratory well being.

Simply as vital to the well being losses from COVID-19 are the well being losses from non-COVID diseases going untreated. This chance price is prime to any financial evaluation. A hospital swamped with infectious illness circumstances can not deal with most cancers or coronary heart assaults. It can not safely carry out hip and knee replacements. These are all QALY-saving interventions, and over the yr or extra that an unmitigated pandemic might play out, these well being losses might nicely outweigh these from COVID-19 itself.


The prices included on this evaluation are estimated to be a $1 trillion stimulus bundle meant to assist companies and people who lose earnings because of a lockdown. The stimulus bundle isn’t a part of the healthcare funds. In case your perspective is that of the healthcare system – as implied by the authors’ reference to NICE’s cost-effectiveness threshold – then the included prices ought to solely be these of the healthcare system. The price of hospital admissions for sufferers in intensive care can simply attain 1000’s of kilos. Estimates have put the variety of sufferers requiring any admission at 20%, and people requiring ICU admission at as much as 5% of whole circumstances. To take the UK instance, the anticipated deaths with out flattening the curve quantity round 500,000. To interrupt my very own rule for a second, this might equate to 1,000,000 ICU admissions, and four million hospital admissions. Notably these aren’t admissions for which the well being system has present capability, therefore why new area hospitals in conference centres are being constructed, including additional prices to the healthcare funds. These prices are separate to these included in any stimulus bundle.

If we have been to guage the cost-effectiveness of the stimulus bundle, we would wish to think about its objective (lowering unemployment and poverty) together with any resultant harms, together with to well being. The authors of the weblog publish point out harms from financial injury, and these are professional, however the counterfactual of flattening the curve isn’t the established order. Quite the opposite, no motion will lead to thousands and thousands of deaths and tens of thousands and thousands of staff (and casual carers) taking brief or long run sick go away. These results are assured to be catastrophic to the broader economic system.

Making use of a healthcare-based threshold, mixing well being advantages and non-health prices, and never contemplating all prices of the counterfactual. Collectively these add as much as an evaluation that’s at finest meaningless, and at worst actively dangerous.

Then again…

The place I agree with the authors is that these questions are price asking. It’s price contemplating the various harms that can consequence from whichever plan of action coverage makers select, and weighing them in opposition to one another. There aren’t any good decisions proper now, and well being economists have a singular alternative to make sure the chance prices of every selection are thought-about, thereby maximising the possibility that we find yourself with the very best outcomes for society. There are a variety of issues choice makers face on this disaster to which well being economists might contribute. For instance, what are the fairness implications of pandemic unfold (who will get to make money working from home and who loses their job, how does this have an effect on their danger of an infection?). Do societal preferences for well being change in pandemics? What are the ethics of useful resource allocation (just lately addressed within the NEJM)?

Value-effectiveness evaluation is a strong device, however it’s restricted. It’s significantly restricted when there are huge uncertainties, and people uncertainties are correlated. There was plenty of dialogue of exponential progress, and whereas some epidemiologists are sceptical about such language, it does neatly illustrate what we’re up in opposition to. Every selection has the potential to have a dramatic impression, beginning a series response of penalties on a scale far past the norm.

I’m not an infectious illness specialist, however I’ve achieved some work on antimicrobial resistance, and I feel there’s frequent floor. In AMR, the problem is how you can worth probably catastrophic future harms. Lowering antibiotic use could have actual and significant prices now, in trade for an elevated probability that we profit from efficient antibiotics sooner or later. The adjustments vital to extend that probability really feel disproportionate. We should sacrifice actual, current advantages for unsure future ones. It’s nearer to the issue we face in an insurance coverage market than that which we usually take into account in cost-benefit trade-offs.

In a pandemic, the timelines are compressed however the problem is comparable. The prices proper now really feel disproportionate, and plugging them right into a easy cost-effectiveness calculation is prone to lead to important uncertainty, and even point out that our responses aren’t cost-effective. That is partly as a result of what we’re paying for – with social distancing and massive stimulus packages and arena-sized area hospitals – isn’t a assured well being profit, however the probability to avert the worst attainable predicted state of affairs.

This isn’t a call drawback that can match on the again of an envelope.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here