The lower the monetary value you place on lives, the less good lockdowns do by saving them

[tahasozgen]

I am reading the magazine, The Economist, July 3rd 2021, and there is a sentence that I cannot understand. The author attempts to estimate costs and benefits of covid-19 policies.

Abbreviation:

VSL: Value of a Statistical Life

An important reason for the big differences in cost benefit calculations is disagreement over the VSL. Many rely on a blanket estimate that applies to all ages equally, which American regulatory agencies deem is about $11M. At the other extreme Mr Miles follows convention in Britain, which says that the value of one quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is equal to £30000 (which seems close to a VSL of around £300000 or $417000, given how many years of life the typical person dying of covid-19 loses).The lower the monetary value you place on lives, the less good lockdowns do by saving them.

What is the meaning of the sentence "The lower the monetary value you place on lives, the less good lockdowns do by saving them" ? Thanks in advance.

 

[SoothingDave]

Lockdowns supposedly saved lives, but there were other costs to society, in disruption of the economy.

If each life saved is worth $100 million to society, then the measures taken were "good," they were worthwhile. A good choice to take the negative impact to the economy because you are saving billions of dollars in the long run through the lives saved.

However, if each life saved is only worth $500, then the lockdowns and the impact on the economy are not a good tradeoff. The lockdowns "do less good."

The lower the value placed upon a life, the less "good" the lockdowns did.