In an article titled “The COVID-19 dilemma: Public health versus the economy”, Euston

Quah, Eik Leong Swee, and Donghyun Park argue that a balance between public health or
economy can be struck. They said that "society inevitably faces a stark trade-off between
lost lives versus lost livelihoods."

This essay is a contribution to a larger discussion or debate about or prompted by financial

experts regarding retaining lives and livelihoods. In order to streamline the matter, the group
of authors made an appeal to view the issue within an economic viewpoint. "To work
out of the trade-offs, we must first put a dollar value on human life. While this may seem
unethical, governments, civil courts, regulatory bodies, and companies do it all the time. The
very existence of the life insurance industry is testament to the fact that human lives can be
measured in dollar terms." Therefore, governments and economic analysts in Asia are the
audience that is the most apparent to this subject of matter. The objective of this essay is to
find the exact point of maximum optimization (bliss point) between public safety and
economic preservation in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors analysed and
concluded that the value of statistical life determines the increases and deficits that appears
from adjustments in the death incidences through evoking the general population's
willingness to pay for modest reductions in the probability of death or to acquire coverage in
exchange for letting a minuscule increase the odds of death. The authors claimed to have
proven the effectiveness of the economists toolbox in the assistance of locating a political
bliss point.

In one's own view, I am enamoured with how the authors projected the matter. No biases
at all, just pure objective statements with an objective solution. The authors explained the
hardships people suffer economically in the midst of the pandemic, how few choices they
have, most resulting in death. Sounds agonising, for sure, but it's gently affirmed by the
solutions given by the authors. Additionally, I am in the same mind with the authors
regarding on how the society poorly executed the problems without further thoughts.