4 ms·

I don't want to put a price on life either, but that doesn't mean there is not a price. The decisions we make now will affect everyone, not just those who die.

I don't want to put a price on life either, but that doesn't mean there is not a price. The decisions we make now will affect everyone, not just those who die. My point is that we can't avoid the trade-offs. We cannot pretend that saving the lives of sick people does not affect other lives. Our society is not having that discussion, but is focused on saving as many lives as possible. Not enough attention is being paid to the other side of that trade-off.

Zenst 7y ago
Of course there is a trade-off - why do you think that aircraft are still flying right now. Things didn't stop instantly and in many avenues, have still not stopped. What is an economy, the generation and circulation of money. Then offset with humans and they reproduce and circulate. However, whilst not all economic aspects are equal, human life is. Hence you will see essential aspects of the economy maintained and less essential will either ride it out, evolve or expire - including what may well be, older businesses as well as young ones. let us not forget, some businesses are very dynamic and volatile at the best of times, restaurants being the classic example. Casualties of human life and economic are inevitable and with that, each country has a different plan, though mostly stimulus and loans. However, fear has and will do more damage to the economy than this virus and if you do not have shutdowns, that fear will only rise - so yes it is a fine balance with much minutia.
carapace 7y ago
There is a fundamental difference between money and blood. Save the lives! Deal with the paperwork later.
- TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
  There’s always a cost-benefit analysis to be made. Generally speaking: health insurers will prefer to pay for procedures for those who will get the most benefit from them.
  - surewhynat 7y ago
    Look, do your analysis to find out what it cost, but under no circumstance should anyone be saying savings lives isn't, "worth it" Health insurers are hugely part of the problem in America and should not be looked up to, as an example for how to behave in a crisis. Other countries have figured it out how to take care of each other as a decent society.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  For both individuals and governments isn't the line between blood and money terribly thin? Obamacare is such a transfer of money into life. Every other decision in government is a tradeoff between money and life.
- Zach_the_Lizard 7y ago
  Should we spend $1 trillion to save one life? I'll bet we agree we shouldn't spend that much money to save just one person's life. Ultimately, there is a trade-off to be made between how much we use to save a life vs improving the quality of everyone else's life. The EPA puts the cost of a life at $10 million [0]. Juries put it at $2.2 million, apparently [0]. But, of course, not all lives are (statistically) as valuable. A 65 year old might have 20 years of life left. A newborn has 80+ years. An 80 year old has a 4% (and rapidly increasing) chance of dying per year. [1] Should we spend more to save an infant than an old person? I'd say we should because we're saving more units of life-years. So to save 1 million people, we should spend how much, exactly? If we go by the EPA, $10 trillion. If we go by juries, $2.2 trillion. US GDP is $21.44 trillion to give a sense of the magnitude of the cost. The EPA estimate would entail asking the US to spend the equivalent of half its output or 12.5% of the entire world's output. If it's 1 million 65 year olds, and life expectancy is 80 years, how much should we spend? A 65-year old has lived 80% of their life. Should we spend only 20%, then? That'd be $2 trillion under the EPA estimate.$444 billion if we go by juries. I have no idea if we should provide that sort of discount, honestly, but it's definitely worth thinking about in an era of intense economic impact to (primarily, but not exclusively) save members of that demographic. The stimulus packages the US government is considering are within striking distance of these discounted numbers at $1.5 trillion or so depending on what passes. And that stimulus doesn't come close to covering the full impact, either. The S&P 500 market cap, only a portion of the immediately measurable economic impact, has dropped by ~$2.2 trillion over the last month. [2] That plus the stimulus is putting us at $3.7 trillion, well over the discounted value of saving a million 65 year olds. We have other measurements to consult, and we're not even getting started. The total US stock market cap is 109% of GDP. It was 158% a month ago. [3] That's a $10 trillion drop. I think the market was overheated, but coronavirus is a huge portion of that drop. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-value-of-life/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-value-of-life/ [1] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-19-26.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-19-26.pdf [2] https://ycharts.com/indicators/sp_500_market_cap https://ycharts.com/indicators/sp_500_market_cap [3] https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_total_market_capitalization https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_total_market_capitalizatio...
  - carapace 7y ago

Zenst 7y ago

Of course there is a trade-off - why do you think that aircraft are still flying right now. Things didn't stop instantly and in many avenues, have still not stopped. What is an economy, the generation and circulation of money. Then offset with humans and they reproduce and circulate. However, whilst not all economic aspects are equal, human life is. Hence you will see essential aspects of the economy maintained and less essential will either ride it out, evolve or expire - including what may well be, older businesses as well as young ones. let us not forget, some businesses are very dynamic and volatile at the best of times, restaurants being the classic example. Casualties of human life and economic are inevitable and with that, each country has a different plan, though mostly stimulus and loans. However, fear has and will do more damage to the economy than this virus and if you do not have shutdowns, that fear will only rise - so yes it is a fine balance with much minutia.

carapace 7y ago

There is a fundamental difference between money and blood. Save the lives! Deal with the paperwork later.

TheSpiceIsLife 7y ago
There’s always a cost-benefit analysis to be made. Generally speaking: health insurers will prefer to pay for procedures for those who will get the most benefit from them.
- surewhynat 7y ago
  Look, do your analysis to find out what it cost, but under no circumstance should anyone be saying savings lives isn't, "worth it" Health insurers are hugely part of the problem in America and should not be looked up to, as an example for how to behave in a crisis. Other countries have figured it out how to take care of each other as a decent society.
threatofrain 7y ago
For both individuals and governments isn't the line between blood and money terribly thin? Obamacare is such a transfer of money into life. Every other decision in government is a tradeoff between money and life.
Zach_the_Lizard 7y ago
Should we spend $1 trillion to save one life? I'll bet we agree we shouldn't spend that much money to save just one person's life. Ultimately, there is a trade-off to be made between how much we use to save a life vs improving the quality of everyone else's life. The EPA puts the cost of a life at $10 million [0]. Juries put it at $2.2 million, apparently [0]. But, of course, not all lives are (statistically) as valuable. A 65 year old might have 20 years of life left. A newborn has 80+ years. An 80 year old has a 4% (and rapidly increasing) chance of dying per year. [1] Should we spend more to save an infant than an old person? I'd say we should because we're saving more units of life-years. So to save 1 million people, we should spend how much, exactly? If we go by the EPA, $10 trillion. If we go by juries, $2.2 trillion. US GDP is $21.44 trillion to give a sense of the magnitude of the cost. The EPA estimate would entail asking the US to spend the equivalent of half its output or 12.5% of the entire world's output. If it's 1 million 65 year olds, and life expectancy is 80 years, how much should we spend? A 65-year old has lived 80% of their life. Should we spend only 20%, then? That'd be $2 trillion under the EPA estimate.$444 billion if we go by juries. I have no idea if we should provide that sort of discount, honestly, but it's definitely worth thinking about in an era of intense economic impact to (primarily, but not exclusively) save members of that demographic. The stimulus packages the US government is considering are within striking distance of these discounted numbers at $1.5 trillion or so depending on what passes. And that stimulus doesn't come close to covering the full impact, either. The S&P 500 market cap, only a portion of the immediately measurable economic impact, has dropped by ~$2.2 trillion over the last month. [2] That plus the stimulus is putting us at $3.7 trillion, well over the discounted value of saving a million 65 year olds. We have other measurements to consult, and we're not even getting started. The total US stock market cap is 109% of GDP. It was 158% a month ago. [3] That's a $10 trillion drop. I think the market was overheated, but coronavirus is a huge portion of that drop. [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-value-of-life/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-value-of-life/ [1] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-19-26.pdf https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-19-26.pdf [2] https://ycharts.com/indicators/sp_500_market_cap https://ycharts.com/indicators/sp_500_market_cap [3] https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_total_market_capitalization https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_total_market_capitalizatio...
- carapace 7y ago