COVID-19 Stuff Here

[Ignoto]

The state should stay out of peoples' choices about cigarettes and sugar. Those are individual decisions and should be left at that.

I mean, sure, the State Government can 'butt' out of those peoples decisions. But they sure as shit shouldn't be going to the Government to get a lap band, a stent put in or chemo to deal with the cancer brought on by smoking. As a FYI, that's around 27 - 28,000 people nationally in 2017; https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/lif...in-australia/contents/leading-causes-of-death

 

[Tex]

Yeah nah.

Key difference here is that someone's decision to suck gaspers for 25 years and develop COPD or emphysema won't result in their nurses and neighbours and random strangers also contracting those chronic illnesses, whereas all the rugged individuals who are prepared to take the risk of contracting another deadly virus will categorically infect a bunch of others, who will infect a bunch of others etc etc etc.

Edit: responding to formerflanker

 

[Braveheart81]

I mean, sure, the State Government can 'butt' out of those peoples decisions. But they sure as shit shouldn't be going to the Government to get a lap band, a stent put in or chemo to deal with the cancer brought on by smoking. As a FYI, that's around 27 - 28,000 people nationally in 2017; https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/lif...in-australia/contents/leading-causes-of-death

We do raise a lot more money through taxation of tobacco products than we spend treating the health consequences.

 

[Derpus]

We do raise a lot more money through taxation of tobacco products than we spend treating the health consequences.

I'd be interested to see that breakdown. I reckon there would be causal issues with making a direct comparison.

 

[Tex]

I'd be interested to see that breakdown. I reckon there would be causal issues with making a direct comparison.

Expected revenue from tobacco excise is set out in the annual budget papers if you felt like doing some desktop research. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare will probably have published on the system costs of tobacco-related illnesses. It's not too much of a stretch

 

[Tex]

Because I'm bored I did a dig for you Derpus.

Tobacco excise was expected to provide the budget $12.95b revenue in 2018-19. I don't think this includes GST at the point of sale. https://budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs4.pdf

Tobacco use is the leading risk factor contributing to morbidity and mortality in Australia. A 2008 study estimated the health, social and economic impact of tobacco use to be $31.5b annually. Worth noting that the impact figure was from 2004-05.


aihw.gov.au/getmedia/9d29c844-57b0-4d68-808b-2dfd13aec28c/ah16-4-7-tobacco-smoking.pdf.aspx

 

[Derpus]

Because I'm bored I did a dig for you Derpus.

Tobacco excise was expected to provide the budget $12.95b revenue in 2018-19. I don't think this includes GST at the point of sale. https://budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs4.pdf

Tobacco use is the leading risk factor contributing to morbidity and mortality in Australia. A 2008 study estimated the health, social and economic impact of tobacco use to be $31.5b annually. Worth noting that the impact figure was from 2004-05.


aihw.gov.au/getmedia/9d29c844-57b0-4d68-808b-2dfd13aec28c/ah16-4-7-tobacco-smoking.pdf.aspx

That's a couple of dollarydoos

 

[Braveheart81]

Tobacco use is the leading risk factor contributing to morbidity and mortality in Australia. A 2008 study estimated the health, social and economic impact of tobacco use to be $31.5b annually. Worth noting that the impact figure was from 2004-05.

There are studies that claim a bunch of wild figures (one even has the intangible costs at over $130B).

Outside of the tangible costs of healthcare, sick leave and carers leave I think the others are pretty wishy-washy.

Also, someone dying a premature death from smoking costs more money in the short term but there is a saving over not providing them healthcare later in life.

It's an interesting one. I don't think the argument really works that they should be banned to save taxpayers money.

It's clear though that if it was a new product being introduced today it would never be legal.

 

[Derpus]

There are studies that claim a bunch of wild figures (one even has the intangible costs at over $130B).

Outside of the tangible costs of healthcare, sick leave and carers leave I think the others are pretty wishy-washy.

Also, someone dying a premature death from smoking costs more money in the short term but there is a saving over not providing them healthcare later in life.

It's an interesting one. I don't think the argument really works that they should be banned to save taxpayers money.

It's clear though that if it was a new product being introduced today it would never be legal.

Debatable. Presumably that person would produce value in the economy and generate a taxable income - i personally think a direct comparison is essentially impossible.

 

[Braveheart81]

Debatable. Presumably that person would produce value in the economy and generate a taxable income - i personally think a direct comparison is essentially impossible.

That is the sort of area the study saying the cost is $130B+ annually gets into.

I agree that by the time you are getting to that point you are making too many assumptions to make the comparisons worthwhile.

 

[Derpus]

That is the sort of area the study saying the cost is $130B+ annually gets into.

I agree that by the time you are getting to that point you are making too many assumptions to make the comparisons worthwhile.

Some would say economic forecasting isn't worthwhile.......

 

[Pfitzy]

Have seen quotes attributed to someone at The Oz talking about how Boomers would gladly throw themselves on the COVID-19 grenade to spare their children all these economic hardships.

I'm sure all The Oz subscribers with multiple negatively-geared investment properties and franking credits were thrilled to know they're going to be part of The Greatest Generation at last

 

[swingpass]

We do raise a lot more money through taxation of tobacco products than we spend treating the health consequences.

i always use to tell my junior doctors that the really heavy drinkers and smokers had paid enough in excise and taxes in their lifetime that whatever we spent on them left a profit !

 

[Braveheart81]

Some would say economic forecasting isn't worthwhile...

I wouldn't.

The economics I don't like is when one tries to provide a whole of economy link to a specific thing (i.e. in this discussion trying to allocate every possible current and future cost to smoking such as lost taxation revenue and productivity). They're studies completed for a paying client to come up with an intended outcome.

It's like when the mining industry makes a claim about the number of jobs the industry supports but if you applied the same approach to every industry you'd end up with 20x the number of actual workers in the country.

Anyway, back to COVID-19.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I've always wondered about the modeling of the price elasticity of demand for durries and booze. Essentially we're dealing with the department of the treasury vs the mesolimbic systems of those with longstanding dependence.

 

[Up the Guts]

I've always wondered about the modeling of the price elasticity of demand for durries and booze. Essentially we're dealing with the department of the treasury vs the mesolimbic systems of those with longstanding dependence.

Nearly perfectly inelastic, treasury aren’t taxing it to deter it.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

mesolimbic

​

inelastic

I remember when we used to talk about rugby, not yoga

 

[formerflanker]

Yes, but look at the efforts taken to mitigate the numbers of road and influenza deaths.

Those efforts pale into insignificance when compared to the businesses forcibly closed, people forcibly quarantined, employees thrown onto the dole, landlords and tenants smashed, society shut down to a very large extent, and a massive debt shouldered by all future taxpayers.
What is needed is a government statement about what level of risk is acceptable.
I would argue that we have done well to date with only 51 deaths (or 2 deaths per million people) and its now time to wind back the economic and social dislocation.

 

[Braveheart81]

What is needed is a government statement about what level of risk is acceptable.
I would argue that we have done well to date with only 51 deaths (or 2 deaths per million people) and its now time to wind back the economic and social dislocation.

I agree. We have done well so far.


There's not really a middle ground though. That's the problem. You can't decide that the healthcare system can cater for 5,000 new cases a week and aim for that because it never stays at 5,000 cases each week. If it gets to that number, the next week you have 12,000 new cases and then the week after you have 30,000 new cases.

It seems that the strict social isolation policies are necessary at some point regardless. If you get to the sort of disaster they've experienced in Lombardy etc. society stops functioning normally regardless of what the official government policy is.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

The trouble isn't just the ability of the hospital system to accommodate COVID- and non-COVID patients, it's that there will be plenty who die despite the efforts to keep them alive. Then there's the issue of the subsequent waves each time restrictions are eased then re-imposed. Sadly it sounds like it's going to be a long haul.