Abstract
An epidemic carries human and fiscal costs. For imported pandemics, the first-best solution is to restrict national borders to identify and isolate infected individuals. However, when that opportunity is not fully seized and there is no preventative intervention available, second-best options must be chosen. We develop a model that simulates the fiscal and human costs associated with different mitigation measurements. After simulating several scenarios, we conclude that herd immunity is the worst policy when considering human cost. If life is disregarded, the lowest fiscal cost is found with a very strict policy by lowering the probability of infection by 90% for eight weeks. If fiscal expenditures are secondary, the lowest human cost is found with a relatively strict measure lowering the probability of infection by 80%. In the US, this relatively strict policy would save 910,064 lives while costing almost 10\% more to taxpayers when compared to the herd-immunity case.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
