8 ms·

I interpreted it like this: deaths are less expensive than lost productivity. This might actually hold given the groups that are the most at risk are probably

by mtsr 7y ago

I interpreted it like this: deaths are less expensive than lost productivity. This might actually hold given the groups that are the most at risk are probably least productive: the old and the infirm.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
And they’re owed pensions or other tax expenditures like healthcare.
- mtsr 7y ago
  Cynical but probably true.
Cthulhu_ 7y ago
Sounds like some dystopian eugenics shit to be honest, get rid of those who no longer contribute to society. I for one am working towards my old age, I'd hate to be left to just die.
- the8472 7y ago
  The outcome may sound dystopian. But once you put monetary value on a life - I think insurances do around a few million per person - then the economic damage will be worth several lives anyway no matter which scenario you choose. And that kind of calculation does make sense because at some point economic damage starts to translate directly to deaths, at the latest when your food and medical supply collapses, probably sooner than that. So you end up trading some deaths for other deaths. Of course I'm not saying that anyone has done those tradeoffs optimally, especially considering that those relations probably are non-linear in practice.
  - JediWing 7y ago
    But we are nowhere near that point. Issue some Fiat money to businesses most heavily impacted. Reduce the spread of the virus. Save lives. Worry about the money later.
- AllegedAlec 7y ago
  > eugenics That word doesn't work when describing people who are no longer part of the reproducing population.
  - bujak 7y ago
    they call it deadwood trimming in corporatespeak
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  It is worse than that - a dystopia is a result of humanity's folly. It being favored is a sad inherent result of "evolutionary" systems where it isn't what is more than what is morally right or wrong much less optimal. It rests upon one dumb tautology: All other things equal things which perpetuate spread more than things that do not. The process while producing quite a bit of emergent complexity is fundamentally dumb. Self perpetuation is fundamentally based only on the implications of the strategy. If keeping elders alive past nominal utility helps spread well then it is effectively favored. Which may or may not be known ahead of time. That said by being smarter than it we have both the ability and responsibility for the consequences for decisions to follow or defy its nudges as we can and see fit.
rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
Even in the red scenario, the number of people who will end up sick for a long time and require a lot of care outnumbers the death toll. Caring well is always better than not caring. Unless we won't care in the green scenario either. But then, who think we won't care if we have time and resources?
helij 7y ago
Not aimed at you, but, I am disgusted at even a mention of these kind of 'calculations'. And yes, I am prepared to take a hit in my earnings, paying higher taxes if needed after this if that is what it takes for at least one person more to live.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- benmmurphy 7y ago
  Another way of thinking about it is that there are other non-coronavirus interventions you can perform that will convert money into lives. if you spend money performing coronavirus interventions then you retard your ability to perform these other interventions that might be more efficient at converting money into lives.
- antepodius 7y ago
  Just give some money to an old person, then.
- 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
  How about 99% of your income? Your assets? How much is a stranger’s life worth to you.
  - JediWing 7y ago
    Slippery slope fallacy. We are nowhere near that point.
    - mardifoufs 7y ago
      What? This has nothing to do with the slippery slope fallacy. . It's not because we're aren't there yet that saying that it could happen is a fallacy. With that logic any type of planning or forecast about the virus is just a slippery slope since we aren't there. And If you agree that forecasts about the virus are okay, I dont see why forecasts about the economy depending on what policy is enforced (full isolation that would ruin the economy or allow people to get infected to keep it going) are worst?
b0rsuk 7y ago
This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money. From an ethical point of view, governments owe seniors the money and care, because they had worked for state prosperity. Also, if young people had more foresight, they would realize the way seniors are treated today will be more less the way they themselves will be treated. But old age and death is a depressing topic and no one likes to dwell on it.
- michaelt 7y ago
  > This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. At least in my country, we spend radically more per-capita on healthcare for the old than we do for the young [1] simply because the old need more of it. For men age 5-45 we spend less than £1000, for men age 80-85 we spend more than £4500. It's a similar story for women, but with a bump for women of childbearing age. I don't see any evidence of a bias in favour of the working-age population. [1] http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135407/ http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135407/
  - b0rsuk 7y ago
    As with many things, there are two ways of looking at this. One is that old people need it the most. Another is that helping younger people is more cost-effective because they have more life ahead of them and if you cure them they're unlikely to get another disease soon. The latter is more heartless, but you can't deny there's some merit to it.
- Shmebulock 7y ago
  "This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money." This seems implausible to me. Given that the rich tend to be of rather old age themselves, I'd wager that they'd invest in preventing their own deaths
dx034 7y ago
Of course it's true, but do we want to live in a society where we prioritize economic output over the life of people? Many do not and governments were elected by those.

by mtsr 7y ago

lotsofpulp 7y ago

And they’re owed pensions or other tax expenditures like healthcare.

mtsr 7y ago
Cynical but probably true.

Cthulhu_ 7y ago

Sounds like some dystopian eugenics shit to be honest, get rid of those who no longer contribute to society. I for one am working towards my old age, I'd hate to be left to just die.

the8472 7y ago
The outcome may sound dystopian. But once you put monetary value on a life - I think insurances do around a few million per person - then the economic damage will be worth several lives anyway no matter which scenario you choose. And that kind of calculation does make sense because at some point economic damage starts to translate directly to deaths, at the latest when your food and medical supply collapses, probably sooner than that. So you end up trading some deaths for other deaths. Of course I'm not saying that anyone has done those tradeoffs optimally, especially considering that those relations probably are non-linear in practice.
- JediWing 7y ago
  But we are nowhere near that point. Issue some Fiat money to businesses most heavily impacted. Reduce the spread of the virus. Save lives. Worry about the money later.
AllegedAlec 7y ago
> eugenics That word doesn't work when describing people who are no longer part of the reproducing population.
- bujak 7y ago
  they call it deadwood trimming in corporatespeak
Nasrudith 7y ago
It is worse than that - a dystopia is a result of humanity's folly. It being favored is a sad inherent result of "evolutionary" systems where it isn't what is more than what is morally right or wrong much less optimal. It rests upon one dumb tautology: All other things equal things which perpetuate spread more than things that do not. The process while producing quite a bit of emergent complexity is fundamentally dumb. Self perpetuation is fundamentally based only on the implications of the strategy. If keeping elders alive past nominal utility helps spread well then it is effectively favored. Which may or may not be known ahead of time. That said by being smarter than it we have both the ability and responsibility for the consequences for decisions to follow or defy its nudges as we can and see fit.

rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago

Even in the red scenario, the number of people who will end up sick for a long time and require a lot of care outnumbers the death toll. Caring well is always better than not caring. Unless we won't care in the green scenario either. But then, who think we won't care if we have time and resources?

helij 7y ago

Not aimed at you, but, I am disgusted at even a mention of these kind of 'calculations'. And yes, I am prepared to take a hit in my earnings, paying higher taxes if needed after this if that is what it takes for at least one person more to live.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
benmmurphy 7y ago
Another way of thinking about it is that there are other non-coronavirus interventions you can perform that will convert money into lives. if you spend money performing coronavirus interventions then you retard your ability to perform these other interventions that might be more efficient at converting money into lives.
antepodius 7y ago
Just give some money to an old person, then.
0x8BADF00D 7y ago
How about 99% of your income? Your assets? How much is a stranger’s life worth to you.
- JediWing 7y ago
  Slippery slope fallacy. We are nowhere near that point.
  - mardifoufs 7y ago
    What? This has nothing to do with the slippery slope fallacy. . It's not because we're aren't there yet that saying that it could happen is a fallacy. With that logic any type of planning or forecast about the virus is just a slippery slope since we aren't there. And If you agree that forecasts about the virus are okay, I dont see why forecasts about the economy depending on what policy is enforced (full isolation that would ruin the economy or allow people to get infected to keep it going) are worst?

b0rsuk 7y ago

This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money. From an ethical point of view, governments owe seniors the money and care, because they had worked for state prosperity. Also, if young people had more foresight, they would realize the way seniors are treated today will be more less the way they themselves will be treated. But old age and death is a depressing topic and no one likes to dwell on it.

michaelt 7y ago
> This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. At least in my country, we spend radically more per-capita on healthcare for the old than we do for the young [1] simply because the old need more of it. For men age 5-45 we spend less than £1000, for men age 80-85 we spend more than £4500. It's a similar story for women, but with a bump for women of childbearing age. I don't see any evidence of a bias in favour of the working-age population. [1] http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135407/ http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/135407/
- b0rsuk 7y ago
  As with many things, there are two ways of looking at this. One is that old people need it the most. Another is that helping younger people is more cost-effective because they have more life ahead of them and if you cure them they're unlikely to get another disease soon. The latter is more heartless, but you can't deny there's some merit to it.
Shmebulock 7y ago
"This may explain why sexually-transmitted diseases get so much attention. They're probably the only kind of diseases that hit younger population much harder than senior citizens. THOSE are the diseases that make the rich earn less money." This seems implausible to me. Given that the rich tend to be of rather old age themselves, I'd wager that they'd invest in preventing their own deaths

dx034 7y ago

Of course it's true, but do we want to live in a society where we prioritize economic output over the life of people? Many do not and governments were elected by those.