Search

I calibrate a Multi-Risk SIR model on the covid pandemic to analyze the impact of the age-specific confinement and PCR testing policies on incomes and mortality. Two polar strategies emerge as potentially optimal. The suppression policy would crush the curve by confining 90% of the population for 4 months to eradicate the virus. The flatten-the-curve policy would reduce the confinement to 30% of the population for 5 months, followed by almost one year of free circulation of the virus to attain herd immunity without overwhelming hospitals. Both strategies yield a total cost of around 15% of annual GDP when combining the economic cost of confinement with the value of lives lost. I show that hesitating between the two strategies can have a huge societal cost, in particular if the suppression policy is stopped too early. Because seniors are much more vulnerable, a simple recommendation...

After an initial period of crisis management, governments must consider what measures against the spread of the novel coronavirus to keep in place until a vaccine or reliable therapy arrives. Informing public policy requires understanding not only disease dynamics and social distancing effectiveness, but also economic features to evaluate the costs and benefits of different actions. This study adapts a workhorse epidemiological model to account for both age-dependent risks and job-dependent social distancing measures and costs. Simulations calculate the costs of six different degrees of restrictions, with sensitivity analysis to several uncertain underlying disease parameters. A novel contribution is contrasting private cost-benefit calculations with the external costs and benefits to society as a whole. The least-cost policy likely involves continued isolation of all who can work or...

The value of statistical life (VSL) is a risk-to-money conversion factor that can be used to accurately approximate an individual’s willingness-to-pay for a small change in fatality risk. If an individual’s VSL is (say) $7 million, then she will be willing to pay approximately $7 for a 1-in-1-million risk reduction, $70 for a 1-in-100,000 risk reduction, and so forth. VSL has played a central role in the rapidly emerging economics literature about COVID-19. Many papers use VSL to assign a monetary value to the lifesaving benefits of social-distancing policies, so as to balance those benefits against lost income and other policy costs. This is not surprising, since VSL (known in the U.K. as “VPF”: value of a prevented fatality) has been a key tool in governmental cost-benefit analysis for decades and is well established among economists. Despite its familiarity, VSL is a...

The Scandinavian countries of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden have approached the first months of the 2020 novel coronavirus pandemic with a range of economic and health policies that have resulted in disparate outcomes. Though similar in behavioral norms and institutions, Denmark, Iceland and Norway chose a precautionary approach that formally shut down schools and businesses to protect human health, while Sweden took a Business-As-Usual (BAU) approach aimed at maintaining normal economic and social activities. Iceland and Denmark have further invested in testing, tracking and containing the disease. Economic costs of the pandemic and government fiscal and monetary interventions to reduce their impacts have been dramatic and similar across countries, while Sweden has had the most severe loss of life. Using a panel from the four countries since the beginning of the pandemic, we...

Though COVID vaccines are finally available, the rate at which they are administered is slow, and in the meantime the pandemic continues to claim about as many lives every day as the 9/11 tragedy. I estimate that with the promised rate of vaccinations, if no additional non-pharmaceutical interventions are implemented, 406 thousand additional lives will be lost and the future cost of the pandemic will reach $2.4 trillion, or 11% of GDP. Using a cost-benefit analysis, I assess whether it is optimal for the United States to follow the lead of many European countries and introduce a nation-wide lockdown. I find that a lockdown would be indeed optimal and, depending on the assumptions, it should last between two and four weeks and will generate a net benefit of up to $1.2 trillion.

This study analyzes the benefits of statewide policy intervention in reducing COVID-19 deaths and the costs of that intervention in lost jobs and lower real gross state product (RGSP). Policy interventions are measured by the Oxford stringency index which places a daily numerical value on the level of a state’s policy intervention. Empirical evidence is provided that shows policy interventions have reduced COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. by 358,000 lives in 2020. On the cost side, it was found that policy intervention resulted in a loss of 7.3 million jobs and a decline of $410 billion in RGSP. The study concludes by integrating the findings related to the benefits and costs of policy interventions to the economic cost per life saved for every state, as well as an estimate of the national average cost per life of $1.1 million. That figure is compared to an age-adjusted value of...

This paper estimates the benefits and costs of state suppression policies to “bend the curve” during the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in the United States. We employ a value-of-production approach that values benefits and costs in terms of additions or subtractions to total production. Relative to a baseline in which only the infected and at-risk populations mitigate the spread of coronavirus, we estimate that total benefits of suppression policies are between $605.9 billion and $841.1 billion from early March 2020 to August 1, 2020. Relative to private mitigation, the costs of suppression policies are estimated to be between $214.2 billion and $331.5 billion. The cost estimate is based on the duration of nonessential business closures and stay-at-home orders, which were enforced between 42 and 65 days. Our results indicate that the net benefits of suppression policies to slow...

The Netherlands has recently closed down primary and secondary education in response to the covid-19 pandemic. Using a SIR (Susceptibles-Infected-Recovered) model for the Netherlands, this closure is shown to be counter-productive (as it increases future vulnerability to infection) and hard to reverse (since the increased vulnerability demands continuation). Though the rise of B117 (“the British version”) has been used to argue for school-closure, B117 increases the negative effects of school-closure. School-closure has been based on a misunderstanding of the dynamics in a multi-group SIR model. Furthermore, immunity by prior infection is shown to provide a larger contribution to ending the pandemic than vaccination. Finally, a cost-benefit analysis shows school-closure to be extremely costly. Behavioural economics explains why decision making and the public debate are so...

This paper analyses the costs and benefits of lockdown policies in the face of COVID-19. What matters for people is the quality and length of lives and one should measure costs and benefits in terms of those things. That raises difficulties in measurement, particularly in valuing potential lives saved. We draw upon guidelines used in the UK for public health decisions, as well as other measures, which allow a comparison between health effects and other economic effects. We look at evidence on the effectiveness of past severe restrictions applied in European countries, focusing on the evidence from the UK. The paper considers policy options for the degree to which restrictions are eased. There is a need to normalise how we view COVID because its costs and risks are comparable to other health problems (such as cancer, heart problems, diabetes) where governments have made resource...

The British government has been debating how to escape from the lockdown without provoking a resurgence of the COVID-19 disease. There is a growing recognition of the damage the lockdown has caused to economic and social life. This paper presents a simple cost-benefit analysis inspired by optimal control theory and incorporating the SIR model of disease propagation. It also reports simulations informed by the theoretical discussion. The optimal path for government intervention is computed under a variety of conditions. These include a cap on the permitted level of infection to avoid overload of the health system, and the introduction of a test and trace system. We quantify the benefits of early intervention to control the disease. We also examine how the government’s valuation of life influences the optimal path. A 10-week lockdown is only optimal if the value of life for COVID-19...