IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2005.03491.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are the COVID19 restrictions really worth the cost? A comparison of estimated mortality in Australia from COVID19 and economic recession

Author

Listed:
  • Neil W Bailey
  • Daniel West

Abstract

There has been considerable public debate about whether the economic impact of the current COVID19 restrictions are worth the costs. Although the potential impact of COVID19 has been modelled extensively, very few numbers have been presented in the discussions about potential economic impacts. For a good answer to the question - will the restrictions cause as much harm as COVID19? - credible evidence-based estimates are required, rather than simply rhetoric. Here we provide some preliminary estimates to compare the impact of the current restrictions against the direct impact of the virus. Since most countries are currently taking an approach that reduces the number of COVID19 deaths, the estimates we provide for deaths from COVID19 are deliberately taken from the low end of the estimates of the infection fatality rate, while estimates for deaths from an economic recession are deliberately computed from double the high end of confidence interval for severe economic recessions. This ensures that an adequate challenge to the status quo of the current restrictions is provided. Our analysis shows that strict restrictions to eradicate the virus are likely to lead to at least eight times fewer total deaths than an immediate return to work scenario.

Suggested Citation

  • Neil W Bailey & Daniel West, 2020. "Are the COVID19 restrictions really worth the cost? A comparison of estimated mortality in Australia from COVID19 and economic recession," Papers 2005.03491, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2005.03491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.03491
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2005.03491. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.