School of BioSciences - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemHealth and economic costs of early and delayed suppression and the unmitigated spread of COVID-19: The case of Australia(PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2021-06-04)We compare the health and economic costs of early and delayed mandated suppression and the unmitigated spread of 'first-wave' COVID-19 infections in Australia in 2020. Using a fit-for-purpose SIQRM-compartment model for susceptible, infected, quarantined, recovered and mortalities on active cases, that we fitted from recorded data, a value of a statistical life year (VSLY) and an age-adjusted value of statistical life (A-VSL), we find that the economic costs of unmitigated suppression are multiples more than for early mandated suppression. We also find that using an equivalent VSLY welfare loss from fatalities to estimated GDP losses, drawn from survey data and our own estimates of the impact of suppression measures on the economy, means that for early suppression not to be the preferred strategy requires that Australia would have to incur more than 12,500-30,000 deaths, depending on the fatality rate with unmitigated spread, to the economy costs of early mandated suppression. We also find that early rather than delayed mandated suppression imposes much lower economy and health costs and conclude that in high-income countries, like Australia, a 'go early, go hard' strategy to suppress COVID-19 results in the lowest estimated public health and economy costs.
-
ItemHealth and Economic Costs of Early, Delayed and No Suppression of COVID-19: The Case of Australia(Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 2020)We compare the health and economic costs of early (actual), delayed and no suppression of COVID-19 infections in 2020 in Australia. Using a fit-for-purpose compartment model that we fitted from recorded data, a value of a statistical life year (VSLY) and an age-adjusted value of statistical life (A-VSL), we find: (1) the economic costs of no suppression are multiples more than for early suppression; (2) VSLY welfare losses of fatalities equivalent to GDP losses mean that for early suppression to not to be the preferred strategy requires that Australians prefer more than 12,500–30,000 deaths to the economy costs of early suppression, depending on the fatality rate; and (3) early rather than delayed suppression imposes much lower economy and health costs. We conclude that in high-income countries, like Australia, a ‘go early, go hard’ strategy to suppress COVID-19 results in the lowest estimated public health and economy costs.