Thanks, that all makes sense, yes I think that is it with the biorisk intervention, that I was only ever seeing a catastrophic event prevented and not an extinction event. For the cost/​DALY or DALY/​cost, I think making this conversion manually is trivial, so it would makes most sense to me to just report the DALYs/​cost and let someone take the inverse themselves if they want the other unit.
For the cost/​DALY or DALY/​cost, I think making this conversion manually is trivial, so it would makes most sense to me to just report the DALYs/​cost and let someone take the inverse themselves if they want the other unit.
Note E(1/​X) differs from 1/​E(X), so one cannot get the mean cost per DALY from the inverse of the mean DALYs per cost. However, I guess the model only asks for values of the cost per DALY to define distributions? If so, since such values do not refer to expectations, I agree converting from $/​DALY to DALY/​$ can be done by just taking the inverse.
Ah good point that we cannot in general swap the order of the expectation operator and an inverse. For scenarios where the cost is fixed, taking the inverse would be fine, but if both the cost and the impact are variable, then yes it becomes harder, and less meaningful I think if the amount of impact could be 0.
Thanks, that all makes sense, yes I think that is it with the biorisk intervention, that I was only ever seeing a catastrophic event prevented and not an extinction event. For the cost/​DALY or DALY/​cost, I think making this conversion manually is trivial, so it would makes most sense to me to just report the DALYs/​cost and let someone take the inverse themselves if they want the other unit.
Hi Oscar,
Note E(1/​X) differs from 1/​E(X), so one cannot get the mean cost per DALY from the inverse of the mean DALYs per cost. However, I guess the model only asks for values of the cost per DALY to define distributions? If so, since such values do not refer to expectations, I agree converting from $/​DALY to DALY/​$ can be done by just taking the inverse.
Ah good point that we cannot in general swap the order of the expectation operator and an inverse. For scenarios where the cost is fixed, taking the inverse would be fine, but if both the cost and the impact are variable, then yes it becomes harder, and less meaningful I think if the amount of impact could be 0.