The Cost of 3 months of Lockdown vs. the Cost of a Century of Pandemics

modeling pandemic

This article represents the global economic impact of pandemics as about 6 trillion in losses over the course of the 21st century. But it is evidently a study of economic losses caused by the pandemics themselves, not lockdowns.

The global economic losses because of the pandemic LOCKDOWN is probably already 6 trillion.
First published on Facebook, April 28, 2020
__________________________
We can see that our model estimates an average loss to the global economy of more than $60 billion per year—or more than $6 trillion per century. Again, an important feature of the distribution of expected economic losses is that they exhibit a long right tail; that is to say, there is a nontrivial chance of seeing much more extreme losses. For example, the model predicts a 10 percent chance that average losses this century will be more than $120 billion per year. Indeed, it is because our model accommodates for the possibility of these rarer but more extreme outcomes that our estimate of average losses is higher than the $30 billion calculated by the World Bank.
No model can perfectly predict the economic losses that will arise from future pandemics, and all models have their limitations.

The Vaccine Apologists

There are many sources on the internet that come from an unflinching commitment to vaccines that I call “apologetic”; the holders of this position are “apologists”. How can you tell if an internet source is from an apologist?

(1) It calls vaccines “safe”.

(2) It denies the dangers of vaccines and only talks about the millions of lives that the apologists claim have been saved.

(3) It mischaracterizes those who have any questions about vaccines as liars or lunatics; and especially as “science deniers”.

(4) It will often insist that choice in vaccination should be taken away, in violation of multiple principles of bioethics (and principles of liberty and democracy for that matter).

(5) It supports the suppression and censorship of anti-vaccine sources.

(6) It denies any wrong doing by the pharmaceutical and vaccine companies who have profited billions from the proliferation of vaccines.

(7) It characterizes the unvaccinated as a major threat to society.

(8) It characterizes dangers of vaccines as conspiracy theories or myths.

There are good scientific and ethical reasons to question vaccines and whether they should be mandatory. And not all the questioners are anti-vaccines. There are different levels to this questioning.

But what we are finding is that if you do a Google search that these apologetic sources will appear first, and it may take some extra effort to find sources that ask the right questions. This is because the algorithms of Google seem to already be favoring a pro-Pharma position.

First published by Peter W. Dunn on Facebook, June 16, 2019