3 ms·

Even young and middle-age people have a 0.2% mortality rate, which at the US statistical value of life (~$10M) works out to $20,000. (And if you're a well-paid

Even young and middle-age people have a 0.2% mortality rate, which at the US statistical value of life (~$10M) works out to $20,000. (And if you're a well-paid software developer, you can probable 5x that.) Whatever you would do to avoid losing $20k-$100k, you should probably do to avoid getting Covid-19 (modulo questions about how long immunity lasts).

lhl 7y ago
One thing to note is that even though there are age range breakdowns from this initial analysis (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32064853 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32064853), there is also a breakdown based on pre-existing conditions, with Cardiovascular, Diabetes, Chronic respiratory disease, Hypertension, and Cancer being 5-10X hazard ratios vs those with no pre-existing conditions. Sadly, the paper is in Chinese, but you would probably want to look at the percentage of non-mild cases in your age bracket and adjusted for your pre-existing condition risk to see how your actual risk might be modeled: http://rs.yiigle.com/yufabiao/1181998.htm http://rs.yiigle.com/yufabiao/1181998.htm But I think we'll just have to see how the medical response is in each specific locality to really get a good idea of what the real risk is. I don't necessarily think that a dollar amount is actually the best way to think about it. It's very hard to think about what value you'd place on avoiding a hypothetical 1/500 risk of death (adjust based on percentage of population you think will contract this). Note that as a 40yo, your odds of dying period within that year is actually about 1/500: https://www.finder.com/life-insurance/odds-of-dying https://www.finder.com/life-insurance/odds-of-dying You can then split this up by percentages for cause of death: https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/01/16/deaths https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/01/16/deaths (Chart 2, select your age category) UK chart, but also some charts on annual death risk: http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html And lastly, the almost useless CDC data/charts - they include leading causes and absolute number by cause and age-group, but not the population size so you have no idea what your odds are: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html In any case, once you have the odds down, you can place the amount of effort you'd spend relative to the amount of effort you spend on other risks.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  > I don't necessarily think that a dollar amount is actually the best way to think about it. It's very hard to think about what value you'd place on avoiding a hypothetical 1/500 risk of death It's not that hard if you try. We face risk-benefit tradeoffs everyday. You either (1) have an implicit price you put on small risks to your own life in the sense that you accept risks below that price and reject ones above it, or (2) you are acting inconsistently, in the sense that you could strictly reduce risks to your life while making more money (or saving more time, etc.). > Note that as a 40yo, your odds of dying period within that year is actually about 1/500: Sure. And I think that if people could purchase immortality for their 40th year for $20k, they should probably do it. > In any case, once you have the odds down, you can place the amount of effort you'd spend relative to the amount of effort you spend on other risks. Sure, now just find out how much you pay routinely to avoid this effort (e.g., how much you pay your accountant to do your taxes), and you've got a risk-dollar exchange rate.
  - lhl 7y ago
    As you mention effort/value can be converted to dollar value, so I don't think we actually disagree that strongly - the missing word from my critique would be "fixed" dollar amount - using the hypothetical $10M lifetime worth. There's more to it, but the point I was trying to make is that the amount of time/effort/money you spend worrying about coronavirus should (rationally) be relative to what you spend for other similar risks. For your last example, I think that what you pay to save time or effort saving services might be on a different calculus since there's a guarantee of how much time or bother it might save you, vs a potential downside calculation.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
      > the missing word from my critique would be "fixed" dollar amount Sorry, are you just saying different people may have different amounts? Sure, sure. But for a given individual the amount has to be fixed across the choices (at least all the choices close enough in time that the money is fungible). > since there's a guarantee of how much time or bother it might save you, vs a potential downside calculation. When I decide to wear a mask to the store, there is a guarantee of how much bother it costs me. The only thing that's uncertain is the risk to my life. But, as previously argued, each person should have a linear risk-dollar exchange rate for small risks.
mycall 7y ago
It could mutate still.
genkimind 7y ago
I can't believe you just changed the value of your life to a money amount you would theoretically lose.
- asdf21 7y ago
  You don’t know about actuary tables?
shinryuu 7y ago
So the mortality rate is 0.2 %. You're missing the likelihood of contracting covid in your calculation. If you calculate with that the risk is even lower.

lhl 7y ago

One thing to note is that even though there are age range breakdowns from this initial analysis (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32064853 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32064853), there is also a breakdown based on pre-existing conditions, with Cardiovascular, Diabetes, Chronic respiratory disease, Hypertension, and Cancer being 5-10X hazard ratios vs those with no pre-existing conditions. Sadly, the paper is in Chinese, but you would probably want to look at the percentage of non-mild cases in your age bracket and adjusted for your pre-existing condition risk to see how your actual risk might be modeled: http://rs.yiigle.com/yufabiao/1181998.htm http://rs.yiigle.com/yufabiao/1181998.htm But I think we'll just have to see how the medical response is in each specific locality to really get a good idea of what the real risk is. I don't necessarily think that a dollar amount is actually the best way to think about it. It's very hard to think about what value you'd place on avoiding a hypothetical 1/500 risk of death (adjust based on percentage of population you think will contract this). Note that as a 40yo, your odds of dying period within that year is actually about 1/500: https://www.finder.com/life-insurance/odds-of-dying https://www.finder.com/life-insurance/odds-of-dying You can then split this up by percentages for cause of death: https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/01/16/deaths https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2019/01/16/deaths (Chart 2, select your age category) UK chart, but also some charts on annual death risk: http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html http://www.bandolier.org.uk/booth/Risk/dyingage.html And lastly, the almost useless CDC data/charts - they include leading causes and absolute number by cause and age-group, but not the population size so you have no idea what your odds are: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/LeadingCauses.html In any case, once you have the odds down, you can place the amount of effort you'd spend relative to the amount of effort you spend on other risks.

jessriedel 7y ago
> I don't necessarily think that a dollar amount is actually the best way to think about it. It's very hard to think about what value you'd place on avoiding a hypothetical 1/500 risk of death It's not that hard if you try. We face risk-benefit tradeoffs everyday. You either (1) have an implicit price you put on small risks to your own life in the sense that you accept risks below that price and reject ones above it, or (2) you are acting inconsistently, in the sense that you could strictly reduce risks to your life while making more money (or saving more time, etc.). > Note that as a 40yo, your odds of dying period within that year is actually about 1/500: Sure. And I think that if people could purchase immortality for their 40th year for $20k, they should probably do it. > In any case, once you have the odds down, you can place the amount of effort you'd spend relative to the amount of effort you spend on other risks. Sure, now just find out how much you pay routinely to avoid this effort (e.g., how much you pay your accountant to do your taxes), and you've got a risk-dollar exchange rate.
- lhl 7y ago
  As you mention effort/value can be converted to dollar value, so I don't think we actually disagree that strongly - the missing word from my critique would be "fixed" dollar amount - using the hypothetical $10M lifetime worth. There's more to it, but the point I was trying to make is that the amount of time/effort/money you spend worrying about coronavirus should (rationally) be relative to what you spend for other similar risks. For your last example, I think that what you pay to save time or effort saving services might be on a different calculus since there's a guarantee of how much time or bother it might save you, vs a potential downside calculation.
  - jessriedel 7y ago
    > the missing word from my critique would be "fixed" dollar amount Sorry, are you just saying different people may have different amounts? Sure, sure. But for a given individual the amount has to be fixed across the choices (at least all the choices close enough in time that the money is fungible). > since there's a guarantee of how much time or bother it might save you, vs a potential downside calculation. When I decide to wear a mask to the store, there is a guarantee of how much bother it costs me. The only thing that's uncertain is the risk to my life. But, as previously argued, each person should have a linear risk-dollar exchange rate for small risks.

mycall 7y ago

It could mutate still.

genkimind 7y ago

I can't believe you just changed the value of your life to a money amount you would theoretically lose.

asdf21 7y ago
You don’t know about actuary tables?

shinryuu 7y ago

So the mortality rate is 0.2 %. You're missing the likelihood of contracting covid in your calculation. If you calculate with that the risk is even lower.