That's not what I proposed. You suggested that a range of non-financial factors - things like the curtailment of liberties, the mental health implications of the 'lock downs' and other government actions - should be costed. I pointed out that that is difficult. What's the objective dollar cost of, or a reasonable surrogate cost for, the 'curtailment of liberties'? If it can't be costed the alternative is to see if it can be reflected in the other factor we're looking at, the denominator - deaths (negative lives saved). Is there an estimate of the number of deaths that arose from the 'curtailment of liberties'?
So what if it's 'difficult' to cost?
Are you suggesting that because it's 'difficult' to cost, the curtailment of liberties and other intangible consequences of lockdowns should just be valued at zero?
Getting back to the question asked, what I proposed was that if you could cost those factors for the mitigation scenario we're living in, might the cost be somewhat similar to the costing of the range of non-financial factors associated with some 40,000-odd excess deaths.
Might it? You're just speculating.
That's my point: We shouldn't be speculating.
Just to be clear, do you think that there would be mental health implications associated with some 40,000-odd excess deaths?
Ummm. I'm pretty sure I know the correct answer to that one. Is it 'yes'?
Flipping the question around now into the 'currency' of deaths, might the number of deaths that have arisen due to the curtailment of liberties, the mental health implications of the 'lock downs' and other government actions be roughly equivalent to the number that might have arisen due to having to deal with some 40,000-odd excess deaths?
There you go again: "might" there be "roughly equivalent" costs?
I say again: That's my point. We shouldn't be speculating. We should be formulating proper estimates.
Let me do some flipping around.
Let's say another country wants to invade and take over Australia. The new regime will initially control when and where we can travel, go to work and run businesses, but promises that we will 'eventually' be 'allowed' to make and implement those decisions ourselves.
Fighting a war with the other country will cost an estimated 150,000 Australian lives.
Why wouldn't we just surrender, in order to save those 150,000 lives? No lives lost and the 'only' sacrifices are things that are difficult to cost in dollar terms. The business case writes itself, surely?