The Costs and Benefits of Covid-19 Lockdowns in New Zealand

2.1 Deaths

The primary purpose of lockdowns is to reduce deaths, and the deaths suffered under the lockdown policy are known. Much less clear is what the death toll would have been under a mitigation policy. In March 2020, Blakely et al (2020) estimated deaths from an eradication (lockdown) policy at 500, those from a mitigation strategy at 6,500 – 13,000, and those from no mitigation measures at 30,100 arising from 60% of the population then being infected. In November Binny et al (2020, Table 3) estimated the death toll from adoption of only Level 2 (a version of mitigation) at 32,000 (and more if the health system were saturated with cases, as it would be at that casualty level). Blakely et al’s (2020) estimates use mortality rates by age group from the Ferguson et al (2020) study in the UK. These in turn are based upon an epidemiological model in which each infected individual is estimated to infect R others (the reproduction rate) and this process extrapolated until so many people are infected that the virus dies out for lack of new targets. The estimates of Binny et al (2020) share this crucial feature.

In the first of these models, the estimated deaths under lockdown (500) are far in excess of the actual deaths incurred to date under lockdown, and this implies that their estimates of the additional deaths under mitigation will also be far too high. In addition, the death rate estimated by Binny et al (2020) under a mitigation policy (at least 32,000 deaths, which is 6,400 per 1m of New Zealand’s population of 5m) is vastly in excess of the death rate per 1m to date in any country pursuing a mitigation policy or any alternative.¹ In addition, both of these models do not allow for the fact that, as the number of deaths rises, people will react by engaging in more and more protective actions that will reduce the future death rate, such as hand washing, mask wearing, reducing social interactions, working from home, etc.

In view of these problems, I estimate the additional deaths in New Zealand under a mitigation rather than a lockdown strategy by examining the death rates in other countries. Foster (2020) uses the death rate in Sweden to estimate the additional Australian deaths under a mitigation approach. However, Sweden was not the only mitigator; Iceland, Finland and Latvia did likewise. Even better would be to use the full set of countries with reliable data. One such approach would be to conduct a cross-country regression of death rates on variables found to influence such death rates, and include amongst the explanatory variables the strength of government restrictions. The coefficient on this latter variable would then provide an estimate of how many extra deaths would arise if the restrictions were less onerous. Chaudhry et al (2020) examines the 50 countries with the highest case counts as at 1 April 2020, and regresses cross-country death rates per 1m of population (up to 1 May 2020) on a number of independent variables, including various measures of government intervention, and find that none of these latter variables were statistically significant. Gibson (2020) conducts a similar analysis, using the 34 OECD member countries, death rates up to 18 August 2020, and various independent variables including the average level of government restrictions over the period of the crisis. He finds that policy stringency (averaged over the whole crisis period) is not statistically significant in explaining cross-country variation in death rates (ibid, Table 2), but average stringency prior to the estimated infection peak is mildly statistically significant along with a negative coefficient (ibid, Table 2). Hale et al (2020b) conduct a similar analysis, using 170 countries and data to 27 May 2020, and find that both the speed of government response (number of days from the first reported case till the government restrictions reach 40 on the Hale et al, 2020a Stringency index) and the severity of the restrictions (using the Stringency index of Hale et al, 2020a) reduce death rates.

Given the actual or probable unreliability of data from many countries, it is desirable to limit the analysis to countries for which the data is likely to be very reliable. It is also desirable to eliminate countries with federal systems, in which restrictions varied by state or province, because the Hale et al (2020a) data used to quantify restrictions is only available at the country-level. This leaves European countries and the East Asian democracies (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, plus Hong Kong). Hale et al (2020a) have constructed a set of indexes, which assign a daily score to each country for the severity of their restrictions imposed by government, ranging from 0 to 100 and taking account of different types of restrictions. I use their Stringency Index, which takes account of 8 different types of government restrictions.² Death rates per 1m of population are drawn from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/. All five East Asian countries have very low death rates regardless of the severity of restrictions, and the possible reasons (a culture of mask wearing, not shaking hands, compliance with government directives, extensive contact tracing and testing, and pre-existing immunity) are or were not applicable to the same degree in New Zealand. So, I use only the European countries, of which there are 33.³ They are similar (on average) to New Zealand in ethnicity, cultural norms, demographics, GDP per capita, and the quality of their health care systems.

In using the Stringency Index, there is a choice of the average and maximum values, and both have merits. The maximum reflects only government policy on one day whilst the average (crudely) takes account of it over the entire period of the crisis. However, a given average value could arise from a wide range of different policies. An extreme case of this would arise if one country adopted its maximum stringency index value of 100 on the first day, retained it for six weeks and then removed all restrictions because eradication had been achieved, whilst a second country maintained a stringency index value of 50 throughout the 12 weeks of the analysis. Both would have an average Stringency of 50, but would have adopted entirely different policies. I therefore use both the average and maximum values.

Death rates are likely to be affected by many variables other than the severity of government restrictions, and it is desirable to include them. I consider

1. population density (higher values increase the transmission rate of the virus),

2. the date of the first death (in days after the first recorded death on 15 February in France), because later dates provide more time for people, doctors and their governments to learn from others and adjust their behavior, ⁴

3. population (higher values provide a higher pool of virus targets before national borders constrict the movement of people and therefore the transmission of the virus),

4. GDP per capita (as a proxy for the quality of the health care system),

5. the population proportion over 65 (higher values imply a larger proportion of the population in the high risk group),

6. the average household size (higher values increase the pool of virus targets before household borders restrict interactions and therefore the transmission of the virus),

7. the number of nursing and elderly home beds per 100,000 of population (because higher values implies a higher concentration in the high-risk group, which increases or lowers the death rate depending upon the effectiveness of the quarantine procedures).

8. Flu intensity in the last two flu seasons.⁵

Mass vaccination commenced in Europe in December 2020. Since the speed of vaccination is likely to be a significant explanatory variable from that point, I conduct the analysis described above using data only to 30 December 2020. The first two variables are statistically significant, and substantially raise the adjusted R2, whilst the last five variables (added and tested separately) are not statistically significant and their inclusion each lowers the adjusted R². I therefore retain only the first two variables. Regressing the death rate per 1m (D) up to 31 December on the maximum Stringency Index value (S), the population density (PD, in millions per 1,000 square miles), and date of first death (FD, in days from 15 February) yields the following result: The R² is 0.29, and the p values are 0.66, 0.27, 0.10 and 0.10 respectively. The coefficient on S is statistically insignificant and the sign on it is ‘wrong’ (positive rather than negative).⁶

This result may seem counterintuitive, but explanations are available. One possibility is that reverse causality applies, i.e., the choice of policy is influenced by the death rate as well as the death rate being affected by the policy choice. The Appendix investigates this possibility and concludes that it does not operate. A second possibility is that, even without government restrictions, people will take actions to lower their risks in a pandemic and the incremental effect of government actions (to the extent they are complied with) may then be too little to be statistically significant. A third possibility is that lockdowns induce some behaviours that increase the death rate, such as young people returning to live with their older parents, due to loss of their job or closure of the university they were attending, and if already infected to thereby infect their parents, who are at much greater risk of death. A fourth possibility is that some of the European lockdowns were not instituted quickly enough to be effective, and all of those that were instituted quickly enough were relaxed before eradication had been achieved (because their land borders were too porous to achieve eradication within an acceptable period) leading to a resurgence in cases when the lockdowns were relaxed.

This last possibility is very relevant here because New Zealand’s lockdown strategy succeeded in suppressing the two major outbreaks, leading to a very low death rate (of only 5 per 1m up to 30 December 2020). By contrast, European countries experienced

1. mitigation strategies (Finland, Iceland, Latvia, and Sweden, with death rates ranging from 82 to 861 per 1m up to 30 December), or

2. lockdown strategies that failed to suppress the virus (the rest, with death rates ranging from 80 to 1,656 per 1m up to 30 December).

Because the European data contains only cases of these two types, it does not provide an estimate of the death rate difference between a lockdown strategy that substantially succeeded and mitigation, and this differential is required for New Zealand. Accordingly, the coefficient on S in equation (1) is not useful for New Zealand. Accordingly, a different approach is required, as follows.

Since the evidence presented above is that lockdowns were not effective in Europe it follows that the European data is equivalent to that from a set of countries that pursued mitigation. So, an estimate of the New Zealand death rate under mitigation would be the average European death rate (680 per 1m as at 30 December), corrected for differences in variables that are statistically significant in explaining the death rate. For Europe, these are population density (PD) and date of first death (FD), and the resulting model using death rate data to 30 December is The R² is 0.26 and the p values on the coefficients are 0.002, 0.09 and 0.09 respectively. Substitution of New Zealand’s values for the regressors, of PD = .0485 and FD = 42, yields an estimated death rate under mitigation of 369 per 1m.

This analysis uses data from European countries. The next best source of data appears to be that from the Americas, but with the exclusion of the US and Canada (because they are federal systems with variation in policy by state) and exclusion also of Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela (because authoritarian regimes are likely to deliberately understate deaths). I also exclude countries with less than 50,000 people because death rates expressed per 1m of population (as the data source does) are only then expressible in multiples of 20 or more. Across the countries for which both Hale et al (2020a) provides the Stringency data and the www.worldometers.info website provides death rate data, there are 28 countries: Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Panama, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, El Salvador, French Guyana, Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, Suriname, Aruba, Guyana, Belize, Uruguay, Cayman Islands, Barbados, Bermuda, and Dominica. Unlike the European data, population density and date of first death are not statistically significant, but the following two regressors are:

1. population (higher values provide a higher pool of virus targets before national borders constrict the movement of people and therefore the transmission of the virus),

2. having no land borders with other countries (water barriers rather than land borders better restrict the flow of people and hence the virus into a country).

If the maximum Stringency index is added, it is not statistically significant and the estimated coefficient on it is positive rather than the expected negative. With P denoting population in millions and I denoting no land borders (1 if so and 0 otherwise), the model exclusive of S is thus: The R² is a respectable 0.43, and the p values on the three coefficients are 0, 0.01 and 0.01 respectively. Substitution of New Zealand’s values for the regressors, of P = 5 and I = 1, yields an estimated death rate under mitigation of 138 per 1m.

If the European and Americas data are pooled, P, I and date of first death (FD) are statistically significant at the 10% level, with all coefficients having the expected signs. Addition of S yields a coefficient that is not statistically significant, and with a positive coefficient. The resulting model exclusive of S is thus: The R² is a respectable 0.36, and the p values on the four coefficients are 0, 0.07, 0.02 and 0.02 respectively. Substitution of New Zealand’s values for the regressors, of P = 5, I = 1, and FD = 42, yields an estimated death rate under mitigation of 178 per 1m.

Across these three models (2), (3) and (4), the estimated death rate for New Zealand under a mitigation policy is 138 to 369 per 1m. With 5m people in New Zealand, this implies 700 – 1,850 deaths in New Zealand up to 30 December if a mitigation policy had been pursued. The estimate of 1,850 uses the best quality data (from Europe) but is likely to be too high because New Zealand is an island group, and this reduces its death rate, but there are too few islands in the European data (only two) for the dummy variable “Island” to be statistically significant and therefore warrant inclusion in equation (2). By comparison, the average death toll amongst the four European mitigators was 340 per 1m, their average values for the independent variables in equation (2) is less favourable than for New Zealand, and only one of them is an island; this further supports the conclusion that the death toll for New Zealand under a mitigation policy would have been no more than 369 per 1m to 30 December.

These estimates presume that Covid-19 deaths are accurately recorded. However, some Covid-19 deaths may be mistakenly attributed to other causes, or deaths from other causes mistakenly attributed to Covid-19, with the latter error possible simply because most victims have co-morbidities. In addition, lockdown discourages or prevents some people suffering from non Covid-19 conditions from seeking medical attention, leading to some deaths in lockdown countries that would not otherwise have occurred, and these should be included in the incremental deaths from lockdown. In addition, mitigation increases the load on hospitals, leading to more deaths from other causes (through lack of care) in mitigation countries, and these should be included in the incremental deaths from mitigation. An estimate of the Covid-19 deaths that accounts for all of these phenomena is the actual deaths in 2020 less the predicted number sans Covid-19 (“Excess Deaths”). The Euromomo Network has done so and estimated the number of deaths across 18 European countries progressively through 2020, 2019 and 2018 relative to a prediction (“baseline”). The Excess Deaths for 2020 exhibit sharp increases in March-April and November-December, consistent with the pandemic. The Excess Deaths to 31 December relative to the baseline are 290,000 for 2020 (from 15 February when the first Covid-19 death occurred in any of these 18 countries), 70,000 for 2019 and 115,000 for 2018.⁷ By contrast, the deaths attributed to Covid-19 across these 18 countries (to 31 December) were 334,000. Thus, if the baseline were used, the Excess Deaths in 2020 would be 290,000 and therefore the deaths attributed to Covid-19 of 334,000 would be too high by 15%. However, the baseline is an imperfect prediction, as evidenced by the results for 2018 and 2019 (which would be zero if the predictions were accurate). This is simply a consequence of the fact that deaths in these countries in a typical year are about 3m, so that the prediction error of 115,000 for 2018 is a small proportion.⁸ All of this suggests that the deaths attributed to Covid-19 are approximately correct.

Turning now to further deaths from 30 December 2020, these are likely to be significantly influenced by the speed of vaccination. However, even if a model could be developed to quantify this, the speed with which New Zealand would have vaccinated had it followed a mitigation strategy is indeterminable (and likely to be much faster than the speed with which it is vaccinating under its lockdown policy). So, the best available estimate of the additional deaths in New Zealand from 30 December 2020 under a mitigation strategy would seem to be that arising from applying the average ratio for Europe. Over the period from 30 December 2020 to 28 June 2021, the European deaths are 95% of those to 30 December, and the rate of deaths fell sharply towards the end of the period. This suggests that deaths from 30 December 2020 until the end of 2021 (at which point mass vaccination is likely to have been largely completed) will not exceed 1.5 times those to 30 December 2020.⁹

Applying this ratio of 1.5 to New Zealand, with estimated deaths to 30 December 2020 under a mitigation strategy of 700 – 1,850, yields 1,750 – 4,600 deaths to the end of 2021. By contrast, deaths to 28 June 2021 under a lockdown policy have been 26. So, the extra deaths resulting from a mitigation policy rather than a lockdown policy are estimated to be 1,750 – 4,600. By contrast, Blakely et al (2020) predicted an extra 6,000 – 12,500.

2.2 Quality Adjusted Life Years

In assessing the merits of health interventions, the standard methodology amongst health economists is to multiply the expected lives saved from a health intervention by the average residual life span of the victims sans intervention, to yield the “Life Years” saved by the intervention, followed by some discount if the quality of these life years saved would be less than that of a normal healthy person. The result is called the Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) saved by the intervention, which is then compared to a benchmark figure.

Blakely et al (2020) adopt an average residual life expectancy for the victims of five years, but provide no supporting evidence. Heatley (2020, page 5) estimates the average age of Covid-19 victims in Italy at 79.5 years, notes that a New Zealander of that age has a residual life expectancy of 10.7 years, and that allowance for the greater incidence of co-morbidities warrants a reduction in their residual life expectancy to five years.

More detailed analysis of European data supports this figure of five years. I illustrate this with Sweden, which adopted a mitigation policy and incurred the highest death rate amongst countries that did so. The age distribution of the Covid-19 victims is shown in the first two columns of Table 1, and the residual life expectancy (RLE) of Swedish people in each such age group is shown in the third column. Using this data, the average residual life expectancy of Swedish people with the same age distribution as the Covid-19 victims is 10.9 years.¹⁰ However, the Covid-19 victims differ from Swedish people of the same age distribution in two very significant ways.

The first of these differences is that a large proportion of the victims were residents of nursing homes, whose average residual life expectancy sans Covid-19 was very low and might be even lower than suggested by their ages. If so, conditioning on residency of a nursing home as well as age would reduce the average residual life expectancy of the victims. Stern and Klein (2020, page 5) estimate that 53% of the Swedish Covid-19 victims aged at least 70 were residents of nursing homes, and that their average residual life span sans Covid-19 was only seven months (ibid, pp. 16-17). Conservatively treating this subset of victims as the oldest in Table 1, they represent the entire 85+ group (47%) plus additional victims in the 80-84 group constituting 6% of the entire set of victims (6/21 of that group). Replacing the residual life expectancy of these people by seven months (0.6 years), the average residual life expectancy calculated from the data in Table 1 would fall to 7.7 years as shown in the fourth column of Table 1.¹¹ By contrast, if this nursing home group were spread through the 70+ groups in proportion to the size of these groups, 28% would be in the 85+ group, 13% in the 80-84 group, and 13% in the 70-79 group. Replacing the residual life expectancy of these people by 0.6 years, the average residual life expectancy calculated from the data in Table 1 would fall to 6.4 years.

The second unusual feature of these Covid-19 victims is that they were unusually unwell, even for their age; virtually all had at least one co-morbidity, which is presumably well in excess of the rate for the general population of the same age/sex distribution.¹² Accordingly, a lower bound on the impact of this factor is the increase in the mortality risk of a person suffering from one of these co-morbidities relative to the general population of the same age and sex. A common such co-morbidity was type 2 diabetes. The British National Health Service provides estimates for the increase in mortality risk from this disease (relative to the general population) by age and sex (NHS, 2018, Figure 8). Averaging over these categories, the increase is about 50%. However the group of interest here excludes those in nursing homes, because the estimate for the residual life expectancy of these victims already reflects co-morbidities. This exclusion lowers the average age of the remaining victims, and suggests an increase in their mortality risk of about 80%. In addition, a person with a residual life expectancy of 10 years (the average for those of the same age as the Covid-19 victims) would have a current mortality risk of about 5% over the next year, growing at about 11% per year compounded:¹³ Raising this initial mortality risk by 80%, from 5% to 9%, along with the same growth rate of 11%, reduces the residual life expectancy from 9.52 yrs to 6.68 yrs, i.e., a reduction of 30%. A similar percentage reduction applies to the average residual life expectancy of a group. As noted above, virtually all of the victims had at least one co-morbidity, and multiple co-morbidities would reduce the average residual life expectancy of a group by even more than estimated here.

So, the subset of Swedish victims from nursing homes have their residual life expectancy set as before at 0.6 years (which will also reflect their co-morbidities), and all others have their residual life expectancy reduced by (conservatively) 30%. The results are shown in the penultimate column of Table 1, with the nursing home group conservatively assumed (as before) to be the oldest, and the last column of Table 1, in which the nursing home group is spread throughout the 70+ groups in proportion to their sizes.¹⁴ The average residual life spans are 5.5 and 4.7 years respectively, and a good estimate would lie between these figures. This supports the estimate of five years.

The last step here is the discount to reflect the imperfect health of virtually all of these victims sans Covid-19. Miles et al (2020, page 69) use 20% based on prevailing discounts for type 2 diabetes with and without additional problems. In particular, they cite Beaudet et al (2014, Table 3), who favour a quality of life discount of 21% for Type 2 diabetes without complications, and substantial additional discounts for further problems including 9% for heart disease and 16% for stroke. These discounts in Beaudet et al (2014) suggest that Miles et al’s (2020) 20% discount for an average covid-19 victim is low. Consistent with this, Briggs (2020, Figure 3) uses a discount of about 30% for Covid-19 victims, based upon norms arising from survey data from Szende et al (2014). Furthermore, a large proportion of the victims were residents of nursing homes, for which the quality of life discount could reasonably be even higher. I adopt a very conservative estimate of the discount, of 20%.

In conclusion, the QALYs saved by the New Zealand government pursuing lockdown rather than mitigation are estimated at up to 4,600*5*0.8 = 18,400. This estimate is likely to be too high, because the 4,600 additional deaths are likely to be too high and the 20% discount too low.

2.3 Expected GDP Losses

Turning now to the costs of the lockdown policy, this principally takes the form of lost GDP. Shortly before the pandemic arose, in December 2019, The Treasury (2019, page 3) forecasted New Zealand’s real GDP growth rates for 2020-2024 at the rates shown in the first row of Table 2.¹⁵ This is an estimate of growth in the absence of the pandemic. Arbitrarily designating 2019 GDP as 100, the GDP results under this path are shown in the next row of the table. In May 2021 they released updates as shown in the third row of the table (The Treasury, 2021, Table 1.1), with the implied GDP path in the fourth row. The last row of the table shows the difference between the two paths, which aggregates to 13.8, i.e., 13.8% of New Zealand’s 2019 GDP. Since New Zealand’s 2019 GDP was $311b, this is $43b.¹⁶ This estimate would seem to embody the full effect because the two real GDP forecast paths in Table 2 have fully converged over the period for which the forecasts are available (out to 2025). By comparison, Pujol (2020, Table 1) reports estimates of this type from nine advanced economies that locked down, and the median loss is 25%. In addition, Gomez-Pineda (2020, Figure 1) graphically presents annual estimates of this type for both advanced and developing economies (each averaged), and the accumulated losses over the 2020-24 period are 25% and 40% respectively.

Some of these GDP losses of $43b would have arisen without any New Zealand government-imposed lockdowns, because some people would have reduced their interactions with others anyway; for example, a foreigner electing not to make a trip to New Zealand that they would otherwise have made, or New Zealanders choosing to avoid cafes. Further losses would have arisen due to the additional actions of foreign governments, such as these governments preventing or discouraging their citizens from making foreign trips. Further losses would have arisen if the New Zealand government had followed merely a mitigation strategy, which includes border closures. Finally, further losses would have arisen from the New Zealand government instead following a lockdown strategy. It is only the last category of these losses that can be attributed to the New Zealand government choosing a lockdown rather than a mitigation policy.

Estimating the proportion arising from this last category is difficult. Andersen et al (2020) examine the drop in consumer spending in the early stages of the pandemic in both Denmark (which adopted a lockdown policy) and Sweden (which adopted a mitigation policy). They find that the drop in Sweden was 86% of that in Denmark (25% drop versus 29% drop), implying that 14% of the drop in Denmark was due to a lockdown rather than a mitigation policy. In a similar study (Goolsbee and Syverson, 2020) examine adjoining US counties with one area subject to lockdown and the other not; the drop in consumer activity in the latter area was 88% of the former, implying that only 12% was due to the lockdown. Doti (2021, page 120) conducts a cross-sectional study of all US states and concludes that 75% of the GDP losses were due to state government level interventions (from a Stringency Index of zero to the state average of 42), i.e., 2.2% out of 3%. Since the latter variation in the Stringency Index values approximates the difference between mitigation and extreme rather than an average lockdown, this suggests that an average lockdown would explain 1.1%/1.9% = 57% of the GDP loss. Aum et al (2020) estimate the effect of increased infections upon the unemployment rate in Korea (which did not lockdown), the US and UK (which did), and conclude that the effect is twice as great in the US and UK, leading to the conclusion that lockdowns explain 50% of the loss of employment. In a much broader study, the IMF (2020, Chapter 2) examined 28 countries and concluded that lockdowns contributed 40% of the reduction in ‘Google Mobility Data’ in advanced economies, which is a proxy for the GDP loss. In a similar study, Caselli et al (2021) found that the reduction was 44% using the same data source (ibid, Figure 4) and also 44% using job postings data (ibid, Figure 5), all for advanced economies. In an approach directly comparable with Table 2 above, Pujol (2020, Table 2) presents estimates of the GDP losses for nine advanced economies that locked down (US, Canada and seven Western European economies), and two that did not (Sweden and Japan); the median of the first group is 25% and that of the latter is 16%, which implies that 36% of the loss is due to lockdowns.

In summary, these estimates of the proportion of GDP losses due to an average lockdown relative to mitigation range from 12% to 57%. The best estimates here are the last three (40%, 36% and 44%), because they each cover a wide range of countries. I adopt the median estimate of 40%. Applying it to the New Zealand GDP loss of $43b yields a loss due to the lockdowns of $17b.

2.4 Cost per QALY Saved

In summary, the QALYs saved by locking down rather than mitigating are estimated at up to 18,400 whilst the associated GDP losses are expected to be $17b. If these GDP losses were the only cost of lockdowns, the cost per QALY saved would then at least $924,000 as follows: I now attempt to quantify additional costs of mitigation. Firstly, there are the medical costs of those requiring short-term hospitalization under a mitigation policy. Wilson (2020) estimates hospitalized cases at 146,000 and ICU cases as 36,600 under a “worst-case scenario” of 27,600 dead. Since my upper bound on the number of dead under a mitigation policy is 4,600, this implies 24,000 hospitalised cases and 6,000 ICU cases. I assume (to be conservative in respect of costs) that the New Zealand hospital system could accommodate all of them. Furthermore, whatever number of cases were accommodated, they would be to some degree permanently displacing other types of patients so the incremental costs would be even less.¹⁷ Even without displacement, most of these costs would be fixed (staff, buildings, and equipment) and therefore irrelevant. In the interests of being conservative, I assume no displacement of other types of patients and all costs being variable. Gros (2020, section 2.2) estimates the cost per patient for those requiring general hospital care at 30% of GDP per capita, and those requiring Intensive Care treatment at a further cost per patient of 60% of GDP per capita. With New Zealand’s GDP per capita of $62,000, the upper bound on the resulting incremental costs would be $0.7b as follows: Substituted into equation (5) yields a cost per QALY of at least $890,000 as follows: Secondly, mitigation gives rise to some survivors who may experience significant long-term adverse consequences. Using data from the Covid Symptom Study, Sudre et al (2020) estimate that 13.3% of those who tested positive remained unwell for at least four weeks, with 8.8% resolved in 4 - 8 weeks, a further 2.2% resolved in 8 – 12 weeks, and the remaining 2.3% unresolved after 12 weeks. A pattern consistent with this data is that, amongst this group who are still unwell after 4 weeks, 68% experience symptoms for 4 – 8 weeks, 16% for 8 – 12 weeks, 8% for 12 – 16 weeks, etc. The average time unwell is then This series can be decomposed into a set of geometric progressions and then added, to yield an average of 9 weeks (0.16 years). As of 15 October 2020, matching the date of Sudre et al’s (2020) paper, there were 38.6m recorded cases and 1.1m deaths worldwide.¹⁸ So, the ratio of these long-recovery covid cases to deaths is 38.6m*0.133/1.1m = 4.7. Furthermore, consistent with the figure used earlier for Covid-19 victims suffering from serious pre-existing conditions, their quality of life is thereby reduced by 20%. Allowing for all this is then equivalent to increasing the QALYs saved from lockdown rather than mitigation by 4% as follows: This raises the denominator in equation (6) by a factor of 1.04. There will also be medical costs associated with these longer term sufferers. For example, if each such person’s medical costs average $10,000 per year in which symptoms are experienced, the cost for 22,000 survivors (4,600 victims*4.7) for 0.16 years on average is $35m. Both the denominator adjustment of 1.04 and the numerator adjustment of $35m are too small to warrant inclusion in equation (6), and alternative (reasonable) assumptions about the time profile of the resolution of these cases and the cost per year per patient do not change this conclusion.

Thirdly, mitigation gives rise to work absences amongst those who are infected and must self-isolate. Gros (2020, section 2.1) assumes all members of a population are infected, 30% require a work absence of four weeks and a further 20% require six weeks, leading to a GDP loss of 5% of one year’s GDP: However the assumption that everyone in a population would become infected is excessive. Blakely et al (2020) estimate that the infection rate would not exceed 60% because the epidemic would by then peter out through herd immunity, Boyd (2020, page 3) adopts a base case of 40% based upon past pandemics, and Aguas et al (2020) estimates an even lower rate. Furthermore, even if Gros’s estimate of 50% of those infected requiring a work absence were correct, this does not yield a proportionate decline in GDP for various reasons. In particular, many of the people required to isolate could still perform their work from home. Furthermore, even where those isolated could not thereby perform their tasks for this period of weeks, other employees of the organization would increase their productivity or hours of work to at least partly compensate, and/or customers of the businesses would experience longer wait times with no loss of output, and/or the absent employees would be able to perform at least some of the work upon their return in addition to their normal workloads. Accordingly, a more reasonable estimate of the GDP loss than Gros’s would involve 40% of the population being infected, and 30% of those requiring isolation able to still perform their jobs at home, and 75% of the rest having their work performed by others or by them upon their return to work or addressed through longer customer queues. The resulting GDP loss would then be only 5%*0.4*0.7*0.25 = 0.35% rather than 5% of one year’s GDP. In dollar terms this is $311b*0.0035 = $1.1b. Modifying equation (6), the cost per QALY saved would be at least $826,000 as follows: This cost per QALY is too low for two principal reasons. Firstly, the estimate of 18,400 QALYs saved by locking down is likely to be too high because it uses the highest estimate of additional deaths from locking down (from the European data). Secondly, no allowance has been made for various phenomena that would raise the costs of lockdowns but cannot readily be quantified: problems arising from the increased unemployment (addiction, crime, domestic violence, mental health problems, and premature death), loss of social interactions, increased anxiety, disruption to the education of the Covid-19 student cohort, and the deprival of liberties that people would otherwise enjoy. Lockdowns also disrupt the normal operation of the health care system, leading to deaths that would not otherwise occur (such as people who fail to have cancer screening tests done), but failure to lockdown may also saturate the system with covid-19 cases, leading to deaths amongst other types of patients who have been crowded out. The net effect of this point is unclear, because it depends inter alia on how quickly a country could expand its health care system to accommodate the increased caseload, but the net effect over the last ten months has been small because the deaths attributed to covid-19 approximate the excess deaths relative to pre-pandemic forecasts (as discussed in section 2.1).

Foster (2020) attempts to quantify the adverse psychological impact of lockdowns on the average Australian, and concludes that it dominates all other considerations. Such estimates are inherently subjective. Nevertheless, one aspect of this issue can be reasonably objectively assessed: the psychological effect of unemployment on the unemployed during the period of their unemployment. Table 3 shows forecast growth rates for the Labour Force in December 2019 (The Treasury, 2019, Table 1.1) and in May 2021 (The Treasury, 2021, Table 1.1).¹⁹ Arbitrarily designating the 2018-19 Labour Force as 100, the Labour Force results are shown under each forecast path, and the shortfall for each year shown in the last row, which aggregates to 6.3, i.e., 6.3% of New Zealand’s 2019 Labour Force. Since New Zealand’s 2019 Labour Force was 2.5m, this is the equivalent of 158,000 people unemployed for one year.²⁰ This estimate is conservative because the two Labour Force forecast paths in Table 3 have not fully converged over the period for which the forecasts are available.

These Labour Force shortfalls arise from the pandemic, and it is only the fraction due to the lockdowns that are of interest. Section 2.3 estimate the proportion of the GDP shortfalls due to lockdowns at 40%, and the same proportion is applied here. So, lockdowns are expected to have reduced the size of the Labour Force by the equivalent of 158,000*0.4 = 63,000 for one year, i.e., 63,000 people lost their jobs for one year. Frijters (2020) estimates that the loss of employment for one year reduces a person’s quality of life during that year by the equivalent of 0.12 years of life.²¹ This estimate is subjective, but so too is the estimate of the reduction in life quality of a typical covid-19 victim by 20% to reflect their co-morbidities (in section 2.2 above). In the interests of being conservative, I halve the QALY impact of unemployment for one year from 0.12 years of life to 0.06 years of life. The loss of employment for 63,000 people for one year would then be equivalent to the loss of 63,000*0.06 = 3,800 QALYs. Netting this off against the 18,400 QALYs saved by the lockdown, and modifying equation (7), the cost per QALY saved by lockdown would then be at least $1.04m as follows:

2.5 The Benchmark Valuation of a QALY

Turning now to the value of a QALY saved, Blakely et al (2020) used a QALY value of $45,000, consistent with the BODE³ project (which estimates the cost effectiveness of various health interventions in New Zealand). Kvizhinadze et al (2015, page 3) used the same figure for New Zealand, based upon a WHO recommendation of per capita GDP. However, with a current population of 5.0m and 2019 GDP of $311b, New Zealand’s current GDP per capita is $62,000. Pharmac (2015, page 12) does not prescribe a value, because other factors influence its decisions on subsidising drugs and any value would depend upon its budget. However, Pharmac’s highest average cost per QALY saved in recent years is $27,027 in 2016/17, which implies $33,306 in 2020.²² In evaluating the merits of extending the first Level 4 lockdown for five extra days, Heatley (2020, page 9) used the latter figure. In the interests of being conservative, I use the highest number here of $62,000.²³

A related concept is the “Value of a Statistical Life” (VOSL), which values all lost years of an average aged person’s life. This is generally employed in decisions on road safety and the current value is $4.37m (Ministry of Transport, 2019, page iii). To convert to a value per year (called the Value of a Statistical Life Year or VOSLY), which can be compared to the value of a QALY, it would be necessary to first determine the average residual life span of a road accident victim. The median age of a victim is 41, and 2/3 are male.²⁴ The median residual life span of a 41 year old is 43 years for a female and 40 for a male.²⁵ This implies an average residual life span for a median aged road victim (of age 41) of 41 years. Applying Pharmac’s recommended discount rate of 1.58%, the value per QALY would be V such that²⁶ The solution is V = $146,000. This $4.37m estimate of the VOSL was derived from a 1991 survey (Ministry of Transport, 2019, page 14), as is usually the case for such estimates, whilst the value of a QALY comes from public health experts or deduced from the health expenditure decisions by government; the latter would then seem to be more relevant to the present situation involving a health policy choice by government. Consistent with this, Gros (2020, page 6) notes that it is the approach that is “practiced routinely by the medical profession” and Miles at al (2020, page 76) that it is consistent with the approach to other health expenditures. I therefore favour a QALY value of $62,000.

Interestingly, some analyses of the Covid-19 issue have been conducted by coupling the VOSL with the expected number of lives saved rather than coupling the value of a QALY or a VOSLY with the expected number of (quality adjusted) life years saved (for example, Chapple, 2020; Thunstrom, 2020; Holden and Preston, 2020). This may reflect a belief that Covid-19 victims have a typical average residual life span and perfect health sans Covid-19, which may be true in safety interventions but is not the case here, and would therefore significantly overestimate the benefits in QALYs saved. Alternatively, it may reflect their ethical belief that all lives saved are equally valuable, which implies that one would spend as much to extend the life of a person by one day (or even one hour) as one would spend to extend the life of a different person for fifty years. If the latter interpretation is correct, it would be inconsistent with prevailing views amongst public health experts in New Zealand and elsewhere, in which the impact of health interventions on the residual life expectancy of the targets is estimated and converted to a monetary figure using a value per year (Kvizhinadze et al, 2015; Bertram et al, 2016; Blakely et al, 2020).

2.6 Comparison of Cost with Benchmark

In summary, the cost per QALY saved is at least $826,000 if the psychological effects of unemployment are ignored and at least $1.04m if these latter effects are recognized, as shown in equations (7) and (8). Since the benchmark figure is $62,000 then the cost per QALY saved significantly exceeds this benchmark figure of $62,000, and therefore the March 2020 lockdowns were not justified. This conclusion is strengthened by numerous additional considerations. Firstly, using the VOSLY benchmark of $146,000 rather than the standard benchmark of $62,000 does not change the conclusion. Secondly, substituting Blakely et al’s (2020) higher estimate of the additional deaths from mitigation (up to 12,500) for the additional 4,600 deaths underlying equation (7) does not change the conclusion. Thirdly, many of the parameter estimates in equations (7) and (8) are towards the end of their probability distributions that yield the lowest possible cost per QALY, most particularly the 18,400 extra QALYs lost from mitigation (likely to be too high). Fourthly, apart from the allowance within equation (8) for the contemporaneous effect on the unemployed from losing their jobs, no allowance has been made for various phenomena that would raise the costs of lockdowns but cannot readily be quantified: more tangible problems arising from increased unemployment (addiction, crime, domestic violence, mental health problems, and premature death), the loss of social interactions, increased anxiety, disruption to the education of the Covid-19 student cohort, and the deprival of liberties that people would otherwise enjoy.

The conclusion here might seem to result from the mechanistic application of an economic rule, devoid of ethical considerations. However, consistent application of this rule is necessary to ensure that all quality adjusted life years are treated equally, which in turn derives from the ethical principle of equal treatment of people (appropriately adjusted for differences in their residual life expectancy and the quality of those years).