Back

Inclusive Costs of NPI Measures for COVID-19 Pandemic: Three Approaches

Ugarov, A.

2020-03-30 health economics
10.1101/2020.03.26.20044552 medRxiv
Show abstract

The paper evaluates total inclusive costs of three public health approaches to address the COVID-19 epidemic in the US based on epidemiological projections in Ferguson et al (2020). We calculate and add costs of lost productivity and costs of mortality measured through the value of statistical life. We find that the aggressive approach which involves strict suppression measures and a drastic reduction of economic activity for three months with extensive testing and case tracking afterwards results in the lowest total costs for the society. The approach of doing no non-pharmaceutical measures results in the lowest total costs if the infection fatality rate falls below 0.15%.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Frontiers in Public Health
○ 148 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.2%
Similar papers in this journal
2
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 16%
11.7%
Similar papers in this journal
3
BMC Public Health
○ 158 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Medical Decision Making
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.6%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Value in Health
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
Similar papers in this journal
6
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 16%
5.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 16%
3.2%
8
BMC Health Services Research
○ 51 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.2%
9
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
○ 92 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.7%
10
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
Journal of Theoretical Biology
○ 162 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
12
Infectious Disease Modelling
○ 54 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.4%
13
Environmental Research Letters
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
14
Journal of Public Health
◐ 24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
◐ 87 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
16
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
○ 128 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
17
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.0%
18
BMC Medicine
○ 176 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
19
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.0%
20
IEEE Access
● 35 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
21
Health Policy
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
22
BMJ Open
● 601 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.0%
23
Health Science Reports
○ 13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
24
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
○ 28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
25
Swiss Medical Weekly
● 15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
26
Healthcare
○ 17 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
Vaccines
○ 198 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
28
One Health
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
29
Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease
○ 14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
30
Journal of Global Health
● 21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.