Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
It certain that the cost is far (far) more than the 'government' - do you mean Federal alone? - budget for just 'relief and support'. Given your obviously well-informed and researched posts, I'm surprised you'd price it on that very narrow basis.
I reckon Australia's 'let it rip' rate would have been lower than the UK and USA, given demographic differences, but I'll accept your numbers for 'back of napkin' purposes.
(SOPS: It's "goes rogue", not "goes rouge". The latter is a cosmetic...)
Yes, I just ran the Federal budget numbers there, at least in part for the sake of getting back to you in a reasonable timeframe. I'll have a further look at it over the next few days and look to roll in the state spending but there's at least a starting point there - we're going to be looking at something in the order of around $10+ million per life 'saved'.
The problem with trying to cost this thing beyond a fairly simple, fairly narrow basis is that calculations rapidly become complex. Even doing just lives saved versus federal government spending is a bit flaky in that it ignores the cost of a death, even if it's just in terms of whether there's a net cost/benefit to government (beyond that there's almost certainly a cost to the economy).
If you try to do it on a GDP basis then that needs to be comparative as well. We've doubtlessly spent more at the government level but our bounce-back in terms of GDP has been comparatively stellar. You'd have to ask if we were clocking over 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 deaths what would that look like in terms of business confidence, productivity, and the like.
As I said, as soon as you start breaking out from the super-simple approach the calculations get super-messy.