7 thoughts on “The costs and benefits of coronavirus policies need to be weighed”

  1. Posted 31/03/2020 at 16:44 | Permalink

    A very good read, cheers.
    I think though that you should have tried to put a broad range of values on the cost of triage decision-makers saying to patients already in a grave state that they don’t get ICU care. These people in the caring and medical professions may feel abandoned by society when this is their life for a few weeks, themselves go into depression or have suicidal tendencies later because they couldn’t handle the surge of bad cases and the recruitment to the medical professions may drop off if we’re not prepared to swing behind them as much in these dark days.
    People come from all over the world to work in the NHS and related in Great Britain because they get treated like gods. As well as the money being good.
    Still a trade-off though.

  2. Posted 02/04/2020 at 08:43 | Permalink

    This article is a disgrace. Thank God you are not running the country, but I am appalled to see that you are involved in shaping young minds in Bournemouth. I’m not going to invest any time in shaping counter-arguments to your points, your views are not worthy of that effort. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  3. Posted 06/04/2020 at 11:15 | Permalink

    An excellent article. Alas governments never seem to use cost-benefit analysis and yet clearly should.You cover the main points very well about the intervention being undertaken. I’m reminded during this virus outbreak that our ancestors did not have intervention, they had evolution.

  4. Posted 08/04/2020 at 19:47 | Permalink

    Market reasoning captures at best 25% of available rationalities. For ‘messy problems’ as Michael Thompson has demonstrated, we need ‘clumsy solutions’ found by the engagement of all four Thought Styles. It not that the IEA gets things wrong. It has an excessive cultural bias in its evaluation criteria. This problem is encompassed by the old joke ‘libertarians won’t protest at the end of the world so long as it is priced accurately’. What price a life?

  5. Posted 20/04/2020 at 09:31 | Permalink


    It is remarkable that the UK government relies on NICE data when they want to not pay, but when it suits them, they ignore the rules they set for others.

    For example in the aftermath of the Francis enquire NICE were to provide guidance on safe hospital staffing levels but the government blocked it.

    This is a government strong on aspiration, and weak on delivery – and I don’t just mean PPE. Though that’s now a great example of moving the goalposts – PPE is essential, oops we haven’t ordered enough, it’s not quite so essential.

    I think this data deserves publication in a medical journal e.g. the BMJ.

  6. Posted 14/05/2020 at 17:59 | Permalink

    Sarah irwin
    Really useful analysis, im shielding but feel ready to end it, send kids to school. Im on medication, severe asthma risk but right now, im as healthy as i have been in years and

  7. Posted 27/05/2020 at 08:44 | Permalink

    The Institute of Economic Affairs is an extreme right wing organisation. The believe that any about of suffering is justified in order to bring wealth to a select few.

    It was founded by businessman and ‘battery farming pioneer’ Antony Fisher in 1955, it promotes monetarist economics, and the exploitation not only of humans, but of animals as well.

    One person going out during a pandemic can infect millions of people. You cannot isolate the young from the old, or people with health problems like diabetes. Even young people who are overweight are more likely to die from this virus, of have long term health problems, heart attacks strokes, breathing problems etc.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.