Greeting ..this Survey reveals COVID’s impact on grain, milling sectors https://www.world-grain.com/articles/13760-survey-reveals-covids-impact-on-grain-milling-sectors?platform=hootsuite

A solid understanding of economic theory is important when operating a business. But sometimes, it can be difficult to apply theoretical concepts directly to the concrete operations of your company. Some theories, such as that of economist John Maynard Keynes, present macroeconomic ideas regarding macroeconomic spending and its impact on production and inflation. Keynesian theories, such as the 45-degree streak of Keynesian economics and the Keynesian Cross, may be more related to your business than you think

We draw the line between them.

Very valid question. The truth is that health care provision is a luxury for most developing countries, while those with more resources have made it a priority. The decisions are made by whoever funds the healthcare system. It’s not always the perfect person making these decisions, but that’s why elections matter.

In terms of how to fund what, it’s a matter of priority. If a government feels their people face a larger calamity than health, that’s where the money will go. Cost-benefit analyses have been used to make decisions for funding programs across governmental agencies.

However if you’re asking how do we make that decision what to fund from an ethical perspective, I would be clueless!

please read our just published article in BMJ global health answering the same question. we believe there is no line to be drawn.

Bridging a false dichotomy in the COVID-19 response: a public health approach to the 'lockdown debate

BMJ Global Health.

Access at: http://gh.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmjgh-2020-002909

Toll-free link: http://gh.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmjgh-2020-002909?ijkey=JwOndtIudxXICwB&keytype=ref

COVID-19 DILEMMA: SAVING LIVELIHOOD OR THE LIVES.

These are very hard choices particularly for economically poor countries with large populations.

We must remember "You can revive a dead economy, but not a dead person".

With no signs of the COVID-19 pandemic coming to an end in the near-future, we may still lose both the economy as well as the population.

Here in Italy we have had a "closure" of almost three months. The benefits obtained consist in a drastic reduction of new infections, of deaths and hospitalizations, both in ordinary and in intensive care. The price paid is high: estimated fall of GDP just over 11%: Who DECIDED? The government. Now we resumed almost all activities, after June 15 will be complete. The dividing line between health and the economy is written in the fact that if the infections continue again and we have to close again, the GDP would go below 14% and above.

If we can earn livelihood without risking COVID-19, that is the best approach.

It's a fine line indeed, Saad, and you should add politics to the mix as well...

Is very interesting this discussion, but first is the human live, the economy is in lower level..of course we need some relationship bettween both.

Just a trade off, health should be the priority.

We draw the line between them.

Epidemiologists are not trained nor can they run a country or economy. No one has yet produced or attempted to produce a complete, holistic model of the Covid-19 pandemic to include its medical. economic and societal impacts.

In short this is a novel, now to be endemic Flu virus. Past Flu epidemics have never shut down economies. The internet, social media and media pundits have now added another factor to respiratory epidemics: panic, fear and economic shutdown. We need to learn to live and control both, economic and medical consequences.

excellent point, of great relevance and controversy mainly in underdeveloped countries, where the economy and health education includes health per se, is in bad shape.

Consider that health must always come first (because there is talk of lives).

At the time when the economy is given more importance than lives (when many deaths have occurred in the country), including health personnel, population, and there is a lack of control of cases of patients with a high level of incidence of infections by day, a country where it has not increased a single day without infections and on the contrary is increasing day by day, and has a large population with poor conditions and health education. In this type of population, at that time, priority should be given to health.

Excellent, well-framed issue.

The points raised can be addressed theoreticallly and empirically. In both instances, the overall issue can be stated as having to develop a social welfar function that should be maximized. The factors dependent and independent variables) used to form this (perhaps linear objective function) account for the public health and economic inputs that contribute to measure of aggregate well-being. The constraints that affect the maximization must also be included in the modeling. I just mention public health and economcs as twoof the many other compartments that shoud be accounted for (e.g., environment, etc.) By taking this view, the "false" dychotomy discussed by others is -- in theory -- avoided. How complex? Just enough complicated, non-linear and dynamic to bound the plausible answers and thus inform decision-makers. Often, the very objective function to be maximized is arguable. But, the benefit from adopting a formal model is that it is transparent, replicable and can be simplified to case-specific situations. The idea is to avoid making the objective fucntion to be maximized biased towards the economy or public health. Both, and their feedbacks, must be included to see how the allocation of scarce reseources can be optimized for each eventual situation such as that cause by a novel virus. Before you (correctly) throw your hands up and say give me a break ... too much theory, consider that the costs of not doing so at the very beginning, e.g., just discussing a "wave" generated by coupling a few differential equations completely avoids the feedbacks of those changes will have on the economy. Just look at the SIR (and similar models). Regarding who is responsible fro the proper initial assessment: the executive branch of whatever government you may think. Finally, this

comment is predicated on doing the simulation work before a pandemic occurs. Much like a command general staff prepares for wars that may not happen, so should a staff exist to make these simulations, given the complexoty of interlinked economies and the possible spill-overs on the geopolitical situations affecting all. The last thing we waant is a war to beat a pandemic ends up in a hot war.

I hpe you did not fall asleep .. In any case, you did have an stremely well articulated issue

Paolo

Past epidenics as bad, if not worse than this one, did not shut down the economy. Now tihe the Internet, social media and news 24/7 the population has gotten into a panic. This epidemic too will pass, Mother Nature taking its toll and choosing "survival of the fittest".

Integral health care systems (health for every-body)are needed and not the current system of profiteering-from-disease.

Here is my take on immunity relative to Covid-19: 

A. Initially the virus (like all respiratory pathogens) localizes-invades the upper respiratory tract (above the vocal cords in the larynx). Here native immunity (mainly interferons, phagocytosis and mucociliary escalator) either prevents and/or delays deeper invasion of Sars-CoV-2 into the lower respiratory tract (trachea, bronchi, bronchioles and alveoli). Depending on extent/quantity of "infective dose" & native immune response one can swab test positive for Covid-2 and not develop humoral immunity (IgM/IgG) to the virus. Caveat: More likely to have humoral antibodies (adaptive immunity) if had symptomatic Covid-19 URI.

B. Lower respiratory tract infection w/ Covid-19 (especially the alveoli) is always symptomatic and results in a direct adaptive immune response, i.e., humoral (IgM, IgG), cellular immunity (T-cells) or, a later incipient anamnestic immune response. While humoral antibodies are the easiest to test/report, it may well be that cellular immunity and the anamnestic response is actually responsible for Covid-19 clinical immunity

.C. Existing, cross adaptive immunity (e.g., William Jenner, Cowpox-Smallpox) may exist in those that have had "colds" in the last 2-3 years. This especially in children (up to early teens) who are walking incubators for common cold infections. Two corona viruses (HCoV-OC43 & HCoV-HKU1) are the 2nd most common cause of the common cold. It may well be that is why children rarely succumb to Covid-19 infections compared adults.

The above thoughts make clinical sense to me and may explain the confusion that exists with current results, testing and concepts related to Covid-19.