Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (100263)	2/13/2005 6:43:06 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793656

Balancing for pennies in the checkbook is dramatically different than balancing for lives and ability to survive.... Sorry for the mixed metaphor--pennies mixed with cherries... Yes, they're different. But the cost curve is more or less the same. Crichton's point is that you have to face up to the cost curve. Sure, you can decide to go for 100 percent, but the cost would be monumental. Let's try this. (I'm just making up these numbers to approximate the proportions.) Say it cost 100 billion dollars to vaccinate 95 percent of the population against some often fatal disease. A second hundred billion would get 96 percent. For four hundred billion you get 97 percent. Nine hundred billion and you get 98 percent. 20 trillion gets you 99 percent. 300 trillion gets 99.9 percent. And a gazillion gets you 100 percent. What percent would you budget for? That's the scenario for every risk. Crichton talked about mercury in drinking water. But it applies to all sorts of risks. I think what he was implying is that you aim for that spot on the cost curve where the curve accellerates, maybe around 95 percent for prevention and adapt to the rest.