Reference :- Ways of looking at statistics , Part 1 .

Reference :-  Keen statistician Alan Jones gave us his take on the cost of containing coronavirus .

Good morning Jonesie . It usually leaves me lost for words , or confused , when you start quoting statistics  , or as you like to call them  , " the facts " .   Sky Reply contributor , Monte ( the motorcyclist )  has a good brain for mathematics , and I often turn to him for clarification and perspective when you leave me floundering .

Last night you were so angry about the cost  of containing the pandemic that I  could almost see a graph showing the decline in your nett equity emblazoned on your forehead .    You went on to point out that we have spent 10% of GDP on pandemic measures , and only 106 people had died .   That's about 180 billion quid .  Consulting my trusty slide rule reveals  that we have spent about 1.7 billion quid per death .   That sure sounds like a lot to me .  It made me think we could have done the wrong thing with the lockdown , just like you say Jonesie , but then Monte offered a different perspective .

 Monte says that clearly it's not the 106 who died that we need to look at .  Using that logic , if only one person had died that would mean 180 billion quid per death .   It's the people who didn't die we should be looking at .   Monte reckons that a country , like Brazil , where they are very clapped up with virus is probably good for comparison .   So if we use the  death rate for Brazil as an indication of how Australia might have fared without our lockdown , it turns out that each life we saved has cost about 30,000 quid  .   That's still big bickies , but then again Monte reckons that most people  contribute far more than  that to the overall economy , often in a single year , let alone a lifetime .   And we have not even discussed the cost of serious civil unrest  in countries where the pandemic is poorly controlled . 

So maybe we have done the right thing after all Jonesie . What do you think ?

Your comrade , Ken