“Should we sacrifice individual freedom for
the benefit of the population health? Or should we simply help those who really
need it? These are questions that health authorities in all countries struggle
with.” These are the first sentences of an article that I came across on the
Internet. Today, in a time that the coronavirus rules the world, these
questions are extremely relevant. For were all these measures to stop the new
virus really necessary? Many countries were locked down in order to bring this
new virus to a halt, and although the figures are much higher than in case of a
flu pandemic, often the number of victims was much less than initially expected.
It looks like a paradox, a prevention paradox: Steps were taken to prevent a
calamity that didn’t occur. However, as the Wikipedia explains, this is not a
paradox but an example of a self-defeating prophecy. Nevertheless, a prevention
paradox does exist and it is also relevant in the corona crisis.
The term prevention paradox was coined in
an article in 1981 by the epidemiologist Geoffrey Rose. It is based on the
dilemma which strategy to choose in case of a widespread disease: an individual
approach or a population approach. Take these examples, which I quote from the World
Medical Card website (see Sources below), but which are also often mentioned
on other relevant websites:
- An
American study found that most alcohol-related harm and injuries occurs among
individuals who are not alcoholic and have alcohol consumption habits
which are considered normal and not harmful.
- The risk
of giving birth to children with Downs syndrome is much higher among women over
40 years of age than among younger women. However, only 13% of children with
downs are born from mothers over 40, and 51% of children with downs syndrome
are born from mothers under the age of 30, who have the lowest risk.
- Although
individuals who are overweight and who do not exercise, are at relatively
higher risks of dying from coronary heart disease, there are in absolute
quantities far more deaths from this disease among individuals who are not
overweight and who have led a life with normal healthy levels of physical
activity.
The paradox
is then that while the majority of the population has a low risk of a certain disease
and a minority has a high risk, the absolute numbers of people who get the
disease is much bigger among the low risk group than among the high risk group;
therefore prevention measures that concentrate on the low risk group are
more effective than measures that concentrate on the high risk group. Of
course, nobody wants to say that you must not help people who are hit by a
disease, but if your financial or other sources are limited, from a cost-effective
point of view it is often better to invest them in prevention than in treatment,
or, in other words, it can be more advantageous to invest your means in the low
risk group than in the high risk group, since it saves more lives.
This
conclusion makes the prevention paradox also relevant for the corona crisis. Again
and again you hear: Why all these measures that hit me who is healthy
and doesn’t belong to the high risk group? Why then a lockdown that restricts
my freedom? In view of the prevention paradox the answer is clear: It is because
general restrictions save more lives than individual treatments of corona
patients, certainly if the big number of patients would make that the health
system breaks down. Moreover, in the end, the economy as a whole may be better
well off as well. To quote an example of the Encyclopedia of Public Health
“The widespread wearing of seat-belts has produced
benefits to many societies but little benefit to most individuals.” Nonetheless,
we all profit.
P.S. On the
question whether a general lockdown is allowed, if it restricts individual freedom,
of course, also my blog on the trolley problem is relevant (http://philosophybytheway.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-trolley-problem-and-corona-virus.html
)
Sources
- “Prevention
paradox”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_paradox
- “The prevention
paradox”, World Medical Card, https://www.wmc-card.com/us/the-preventive-paradox/
- “Prevention
Paradox”, Encyclopedia of Public Health, https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-5614-7_2758
No comments:
Post a Comment