{"title":"评估COVID-19时期的死亡风险。","authors":"James K Hammitt","doi":"10.1007/s11166-020-09338-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In evaluating the appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a key parameter is the rate of substitution between wealth and mortality risk, conventionally summarized as the value per statistical life (VSL). For the United States, VSL is estimated as approximately $10 million, which implies the value of preventing 100,000 COVID-19 deaths is $1 trillion. Is this value too large? There are reasons to think so. First, VSL is a marginal rate of substitution and the potential risk reductions are non-marginal. The standard VSL model implies the rate of substitution of wealth for risk reduction is smaller when the risk reduction is larger, but a closed-form solution calibrated to estimates of the income elasticity of VSL shows the rate of decline is modest until the value of a non-marginal risk reduction accounts for a substantial share of income; average individuals are predicted to be willing to spend more than half their income to reduce one-year mortality risk by 1 in 100. Second, mortality risk is concentrated among the elderly, for whom VSL may be smaller and who would benefit from a persistent risk reduction for a shorter period because of their shorter life expectancy. Third, the pandemic and responses to it have caused substantial losses in income that should decrease VSL. In contrast, VSL is plausibly larger for risks (like COVID-19) that are dreaded, uncertain, catastrophic, and ambiguous. These arguments are evaluated and key issues for improving estimates are highlighted.</p>","PeriodicalId":48066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty","volume":"61 2","pages":"129-154"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11166-020-09338-1","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19.\",\"authors\":\"James K Hammitt\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11166-020-09338-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In evaluating the appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a key parameter is the rate of substitution between wealth and mortality risk, conventionally summarized as the value per statistical life (VSL). For the United States, VSL is estimated as approximately $10 million, which implies the value of preventing 100,000 COVID-19 deaths is $1 trillion. Is this value too large? There are reasons to think so. First, VSL is a marginal rate of substitution and the potential risk reductions are non-marginal. The standard VSL model implies the rate of substitution of wealth for risk reduction is smaller when the risk reduction is larger, but a closed-form solution calibrated to estimates of the income elasticity of VSL shows the rate of decline is modest until the value of a non-marginal risk reduction accounts for a substantial share of income; average individuals are predicted to be willing to spend more than half their income to reduce one-year mortality risk by 1 in 100. Second, mortality risk is concentrated among the elderly, for whom VSL may be smaller and who would benefit from a persistent risk reduction for a shorter period because of their shorter life expectancy. Third, the pandemic and responses to it have caused substantial losses in income that should decrease VSL. In contrast, VSL is plausibly larger for risks (like COVID-19) that are dreaded, uncertain, catastrophic, and ambiguous. These arguments are evaluated and key issues for improving estimates are highlighted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty\",\"volume\":\"61 2\",\"pages\":\"129-154\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11166-020-09338-1\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09338-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/11/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Risk and Uncertainty","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09338-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/11/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
In evaluating the appropriate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a key parameter is the rate of substitution between wealth and mortality risk, conventionally summarized as the value per statistical life (VSL). For the United States, VSL is estimated as approximately $10 million, which implies the value of preventing 100,000 COVID-19 deaths is $1 trillion. Is this value too large? There are reasons to think so. First, VSL is a marginal rate of substitution and the potential risk reductions are non-marginal. The standard VSL model implies the rate of substitution of wealth for risk reduction is smaller when the risk reduction is larger, but a closed-form solution calibrated to estimates of the income elasticity of VSL shows the rate of decline is modest until the value of a non-marginal risk reduction accounts for a substantial share of income; average individuals are predicted to be willing to spend more than half their income to reduce one-year mortality risk by 1 in 100. Second, mortality risk is concentrated among the elderly, for whom VSL may be smaller and who would benefit from a persistent risk reduction for a shorter period because of their shorter life expectancy. Third, the pandemic and responses to it have caused substantial losses in income that should decrease VSL. In contrast, VSL is plausibly larger for risks (like COVID-19) that are dreaded, uncertain, catastrophic, and ambiguous. These arguments are evaluated and key issues for improving estimates are highlighted.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Risk and Uncertainty (JRU) welcomes original empirical, experimental, and theoretical manuscripts dealing with the analysis of risk-bearing behavior and decision making under uncertainty. The topics covered in the journal include, but are not limited to, decision theory and the economics of uncertainty, experimental investigations of behavior under uncertainty, empirical studies of real world risk-taking behavior, behavioral models of choice under uncertainty, and risk and public policy. Review papers are welcome.
The JRU does not publish finance or behavioral finance research, game theory, note length work, or papers that treat Likert-type scales as having cardinal significance.
An important aim of the JRU is to encourage interdisciplinary communication and interaction between researchers in the area of risk and uncertainty. Authors are expected to provide introductory discussions which set forth the nature of their research and the interpretation and implications of their findings in a manner accessible to knowledgeable researchers in other disciplines.
Officially cited as: J Risk Uncertain