4 ms·

No one I've seen make this argument seems to have any numbers to back up the "the cure is worse than the disease" argument. The do nothing case is pretty clear

No one I've seen make this argument seems to have any numbers to back up the "the cure is worse than the disease" argument. The do nothing case is pretty clear 1-2% of the Global population dies. Probably more because once the healthcare system is overwhelmed that percentage goes up.

dingaling 7y ago
> The do nothing case is pretty clear 1-2% of the Global population dies. And the population of the Earth could handle that without a blip, particularly as it is concentrated in the groups with the least economic contribution.
- genofon 7y ago
  life is much more than just an economic contribution. Society is made by people that have relationships far beyond economics (family, friends..). Money plays a big part of course but people were also happy when there was less money around. Loosing one (or more) dear one is much more devastating that an economic crisis.
- pmorici 7y ago
  Sure I guess if you think you are in the group that won't be affected that is easy to say. If you wanted to be really crass you might say that since it has a much higher mortality rate among older people it will be a huge boon for government's fiscal position because it will cull the rolls of Social Security beneficiaries.
chronofar 7y ago
Part of this argument, for me at least, isn't number based. I'm of the opinion that culturally we put far too much value on being alive and far too little on quality of life. You can see it in our conversation (here most people just want to talk about death numbers), our laws (ie euthanasia is illegal), and our news cycles. Everyone dies. All of humanity does not exist for most of the age of the universe, to say nothing of individuals. That's a trite thing to say but it is no less true. Not everyone gets to live a good life, even fewer in situations like this. Our DNA wants to stay alive, the existential dread is understandable, but culturally I think we'd be a lot healthier if we put more value in quality of lives than the preservation of them. Now balancing this is not easy and I'm not saying in our current situation we should just lift all measures, but if framed that way the conversation starts to take on a different tone than just looking at potential death rates as the overall guiding function.
sershe 7y ago
That is not at all clear. The Nembro article, which based solely on the article itself looks like the ~upper bound on the ~worst case, posits 1% age adjusted deaths. The world population pyramid is very different from Italy's, so I bet it won't even be 1%. Then, it's not about lives, it's about years of life lost. The average age of the deaths is >80 in Italy, close to that in WA (median is >80, not sure about the average). In years of life lost, one boy who was shot while the lockdown was being enforced in Kenya (iirc) is "worth" on the order of 10-20 average COVID dead (even if you don't weight earlier years of life heavier, which I would). A 30-year-old committing suicide in isolation in the US (acquaintance of a friend) is worth close to that. Then, if you want a real example of loss of life from a major economic crisis, look at life expectancy in Russia between 1980-2000, or birth rates during the same and GD. Finally, I would also argue having experienced the former that for (low) 100s of millions of people in ex-USSR, you have to count the 90ies as years at least partially lost, because they were spent in survival mode with giant loss of time and human potential. Personally I'd rather live a good life and die at 80 than throw away my e.g. 30ies working two jobs and trying to find where I can buy cheaper pasta, and live till 85.
- DanBC 7y ago
  The Italian data is skewed old. We're not seeing that so clearly in Spain, France, or the UK. https://twitter.com/ActuaryByDay/status/1246866119597621248 https://twitter.com/ActuaryByDay/status/1246866119597621248

dingaling 7y ago

> The do nothing case is pretty clear 1-2% of the Global population dies. And the population of the Earth could handle that without a blip, particularly as it is concentrated in the groups with the least economic contribution.

genofon 7y ago
life is much more than just an economic contribution. Society is made by people that have relationships far beyond economics (family, friends..). Money plays a big part of course but people were also happy when there was less money around. Loosing one (or more) dear one is much more devastating that an economic crisis.
pmorici 7y ago
Sure I guess if you think you are in the group that won't be affected that is easy to say. If you wanted to be really crass you might say that since it has a much higher mortality rate among older people it will be a huge boon for government's fiscal position because it will cull the rolls of Social Security beneficiaries.

chronofar 7y ago

Part of this argument, for me at least, isn't number based. I'm of the opinion that culturally we put far too much value on being alive and far too little on quality of life. You can see it in our conversation (here most people just want to talk about death numbers), our laws (ie euthanasia is illegal), and our news cycles. Everyone dies. All of humanity does not exist for most of the age of the universe, to say nothing of individuals. That's a trite thing to say but it is no less true. Not everyone gets to live a good life, even fewer in situations like this. Our DNA wants to stay alive, the existential dread is understandable, but culturally I think we'd be a lot healthier if we put more value in quality of lives than the preservation of them. Now balancing this is not easy and I'm not saying in our current situation we should just lift all measures, but if framed that way the conversation starts to take on a different tone than just looking at potential death rates as the overall guiding function.

sershe 7y ago

That is not at all clear. The Nembro article, which based solely on the article itself looks like the ~upper bound on the ~worst case, posits 1% age adjusted deaths. The world population pyramid is very different from Italy's, so I bet it won't even be 1%. Then, it's not about lives, it's about years of life lost. The average age of the deaths is >80 in Italy, close to that in WA (median is >80, not sure about the average). In years of life lost, one boy who was shot while the lockdown was being enforced in Kenya (iirc) is "worth" on the order of 10-20 average COVID dead (even if you don't weight earlier years of life heavier, which I would). A 30-year-old committing suicide in isolation in the US (acquaintance of a friend) is worth close to that. Then, if you want a real example of loss of life from a major economic crisis, look at life expectancy in Russia between 1980-2000, or birth rates during the same and GD. Finally, I would also argue having experienced the former that for (low) 100s of millions of people in ex-USSR, you have to count the 90ies as years at least partially lost, because they were spent in survival mode with giant loss of time and human potential. Personally I'd rather live a good life and die at 80 than throw away my e.g. 30ies working two jobs and trying to find where I can buy cheaper pasta, and live till 85.

DanBC 7y ago
The Italian data is skewed old. We're not seeing that so clearly in Spain, France, or the UK. https://twitter.com/ActuaryByDay/status/1246866119597621248 https://twitter.com/ActuaryByDay/status/1246866119597621248