Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • so I appreciate that.


  • Let me move forward to my second point, and, uh, I was really honored yesterday to have an incredible guest on the show and this guest.


  • His name is Professor David Miles.


  • He is a professor at Imperial College, London.


  • He's a former member of Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee right now.


  • Look, I spent 20 years in finance.


  • Monetary policy is how governments choose short term interest rates, and it basically controls the economy.


  • It's one of the most powerful positions in government.


  • Some would argue in America.


  • It's the decision that Fed makes its more powerful than what the president can decide.


  • So this man is high ranking.


  • He's also former chief economist for Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch Alright, former member of the Financial Services Authority, which polices all the bankers here.

    他也是摩根士丹利和美林的前首席經濟學家 好吧,金融服務管理局的前成員,該局負責監管這裡所有的銀行家。

  • And I sat down with Professor David Miles yesterday and we had a discussion, and the professor said this quote, uh, the three month locked down earlier this year came at an extremely high price relative to the health benefits, and he went on to say that in another extremely costly locked down, um, he believes that the benefits may not exceed the costs we want went on further and we concluded that we cannot survive past 30 days and he briefly said this and I'm gonna play a video of him shortly if this lock down last for any longer than 30 days and honestly, I think he was being generous a 30 days.


  • I think he really wanted to Same or like two weeks, he said.


  • Literally.


  • We won't survive and he's not talking about surviving the disease.


  • He's talking about surviving as as a people.


  • We will no longer have the money to even pay for basic services.


  • We will no longer have the funds to keep this country going.


  • We won't be even to pay for our health services.


  • This is how dire these decisions are being made and that's why I want to go in deeper on this.


  • But he also made a really interesting point and he talked about something called quality and this is something that's not being talked about and we need to talk about it right now.


  • It's called the quality adjusted life year quality and this is the measure that the NHS actually uses to evaluate whether a procedure needs to take place on a patient in the National Health Service, and this is how it works.


  • They look at a patient, and they look at a procedure.


  • If the procedure can increase the patient's lifespan by one year, then they agreed to do that procedure on Lee.


  • If it costs £30,000 or less, let me repeat that.


  • Say, there's a cancer surgery that they're about to do or a cancer treatment.


  • If it costs more than £30,000 and it doesn't extend their life by more than one year, they say, No, we're not going to do the procedure now.


  • You might say, Well, that's really callous.


  • They should do anything to save their life.


  • But what if that procedure costs £3 million or £300 million or £3 billion?


  • At some point?


  • It's not cost effective to have that procedure for everyone.


  • And the professor went on to say, Brian, our our health budget would be 98% of GDP if we spent every dollar to save every life.


  • So at some point we have to make a decision on these decisions were made every every day in our lives, the speed limit is that I think 70 MPH in Britain because that's the optimal limit to make sure transportation moves and we minimize the loss of life.


  • If we wanted to eliminate the loss of life, we would make the speed limit five miles an hour, so we would all go so slow there would be no traffic accidents.


  • So every day we make decisions that are somewhere in between optimizing for loss of life and the economic benefits.


  • And he went deeper on this quality adjusted life here.


  • And he said that if you save someone from Cove in there, usually in their eighties, he said, on on a maximum scale, they had 10 years of expected life left.


  • It's probably more like five, he said.


  • If you multiply that times 30,000 when you save a life, ITT's if you want to quantify it, it's £300,000 to save that life.


  • And, uh, Professor Miles went in and said, If you look at that £300,000 figure and you multiply it by the potential 1000 people that are gonna die per day, according to some of these models or even two or 3000.

    而且,呃,邁爾斯教授走了進來,說, 如果你看看那30萬英鎊的數字 你乘以潛在的1000人 這是要去死的每一天, 根據這些模型的一些 甚至兩個或3000。

  • When you compare that to the £1.8 billion of loss to the economy every single day, you start to really see a clear cost benefit analysis, and you start to really understand that eliminating the virus.


  • If you try to do that, we will not survive because we cannot afford to look at it that way again.


  • We need to think about control versus elimination on.


  • We need to find a way toe live with this virus.


  • There is no way to eliminate it.


  • But right now our government has sold you an agenda that this is the way to eliminate this virus and we are literally crushing our economy.


  • Our future are lively hoods on the back of trying to save a small portion of lives that, when you quantify it, does not justify the loss from this lock down.


  • I can't put it any clearly and again.


  • Every loss of life needs to be minimized.


  • But this is a disproportionate response to the virus, and it couldn't be made any clear than by this quality score.


  • And here's a short video of me talking to Professor Miles about this concept and again he is very clear on the cost benefit analysis on this is the conversation no one's having.


  • We need to talk about it because it's a really reason why we shouldn't be locked down right now.


  • Here is Professor Miles.


  • If I was maybe just to generalize some of the assumptions you made about that model, I think you said if you save a life roughly 10 years of life, you might save for that person times the 30,000.


  • I guess that's £300,000 you would potentially save with each life.


  • Is that a rough idea?


  • Um, yes, in a way.


  • In a way, that's right.


  • So, I mean, if you looked at the average age off people who tragically have died with co vid, it's somewhere in the sort of low eighties.

    所以,我的意思是,如果你看了平均年齡 關閉的人誰不幸已經死了co vid, 它的地方在排序低80多歲。

  • Um, if you asked what was the life expectancy off people off that typical age, the best.

    嗯,如果你問什麼是預期壽命 關閉的人關閉的典型年齡,最好的。

  • Probably.


  • It was about 10 years, probably actually a little bit less, given that most of the people who died at that age with Cove it had related health problems.


  • And so if you then said, Well, okay, suppose you apply that national health service rule.


  • How many resources using the NHS rule.


  • Would you want to apply to saving on average, those kind of lives?


  • And the answer would be, as you say, you know, three or £400,000.


  • Now I stress again, this looks like a very macabre thing to do.


  • It looks like the kind of thing a kind of heartless economists would do.


  • Attaching money, values, alights, saved.


  • But the reality is that that's how decisions are made in public health systems in pretty much every country in the world and in other areas where governments have to make rules.


  • How fast can people drive on our roads, for example?


  • So it was simply applying that kind of rule, and I think had that analysis said, well, it was a close run thing, whether the lock down for three months was sensible or not, I think it would be much more open minded about it.


  • But I think as it turned out, the numbers suggested that the costs were so much higher down the £30,000 per quality rule would have justified that.


  • It seemed to me you'd have to go way beyond that National health service rule to have justified restrictions, blanket restrictions kept in place for as long as we did back in the spring, into the summer here in the UK Yeah, I think you're right.

    在我看來,你必須走得更遠 超越了國家衛生服務規則 有正當的限制, 籠統的限制保持在地方 因為我們做了這麼久 早在春天,到夏天 在英國這裡 是的,我想你是對的。

  • Because I think the maximum death was back in April.


  • I think it was 1200 or 1242 and one day.


  • So if you took that number of 300,000, which is probably being generous for 10 years of life and you do the math compared to the GDP loss per day, which I heard now is about 1.8 billion in GDP loss per day on lock down, maybe I'm off, but it looks to be orders of magnitude cost benefit analysis.


  • And I know this is kind of a macabre topic, but like you said, we make these decisions every day in our policy.


  • And like you said, the speed limits the NHS.


  • So it's something we have to face at some point, like you said in an extended locked down and say this actually just doesn't make sense.


  • And if we continue, this will quite literally just bankrupt the nation.


  • Well, I think I think you know, continuing toe have blanket lockdowns switched on for a few months, then maybe off from Sorsogon scripts them back on, um is so costly that my guess is that that would not pass any sensible cost benefit analysis again to stress, you know, that's not the current government strategy.


  • You know, we're told that this is going to be a four week locked down.


  • Hopefully will succeed in bringing the infection rates down very rapidly.


  • Take off the table.


  • Much of the risk of hospitals being I'm overwhelmed on that.


  • That might well be a sensible strategy, I think what wouldn't be, though, is if we kept getting back into this situation.


  • You know, two months on, one month off, two months on, one month off, I think that would be pretty disastrous.


so I appreciate that.



影片操作 你可以在這邊進行「影片」的調整,以及「字幕」的顯示

A2 初級 中文 生命 教授 鎖定 手術 損失 邁爾斯

BRIAN ROSE:什麼是 "QALY",為什麼你需要了解更多關於它的資訊--大衛-邁爾斯教授 - Real Deal (BRIAN ROSE: What Is 'QALY' & Why You Need To Know More About It - Professor David Miles | Real Deal)

  • 2 0
    林宜悉 發佈於 2020 年 11 月 16 日