0 Replies Latest reply: Dec 10, 2014 1:19 PM by isabellawm RSS

    farmer and kim : 17 million dollars - is new york 17 times less economical for ending ebola than senegal

    isabellawm C4D Connoisseur
    Visibility: Open to anyone

      Breaking news good to see ebola fighters at community health level are Te Time's persons of the year

       

      http://pih.org One of the most interesting 60 minute conversations I have ever heard took place last night with 1000+ listeners to Kim and Farmer on what to do and learn from Ebola

       

      There were many sub-dialogues hopefully worth the replay but one I would like to check understanding of is

      Kim's comparison of the $1 million it cost senegal to treat one patient and so far end ebola from its country, versus the 17 billion dollars it took New York to do the same

       

      The way I heard the conversation (your advice welcome) - new york was probably far more than 17 times less economical because the consequence was a lot of media fear and not much learning. Whereas in Senegal the leadership of the country got involved; its quite likely that senegal now as a system in place if ebola ever comes again. And other countries in Africa as yet untouched by Ebola could gain from replicating what Senegal did. Fingers crossed Senegal has developed one of te most economical knowhow systems ever

       

      The rest of the conversation was sad. The costs to ever get economies rising again - let alone the human costs - in each of sierra leone , liberia , Guinea sounded to be in the many billions. Over and over in our globalising world macroeconomists have got risks exponentially wrong. By not spending on the basics, the human and monetary costs of system collapse has been order of magnitudes more costly than they claimed short-term efficiency.or even "externalisation"

       

      I suggest that if any economist from adam smith to keynes came back to earth and looked at what conventional macroeconomists have spun since world war 2 and tv era , they would not recognise  what was going on in the name of economics. If there was an oxford union debate on this house believes macroeconomists 1948-2008 became experts in designing the most costly systems on earth, how would you vote?