5 ms·

On 1), what do you consider "not that serious"? IE, what are your metrics of choice, and what are the acceptable values? Regarding the cost-benefit discussion

On 1), what do you consider "not that serious"? IE, what are your metrics of choice, and what are the acceptable values? Regarding the cost-benefit discussion, my perspective is that people only want to discuss the downsides from a reduced economy. Second order effects include reduced vehicle deaths, reduced deaths from pollution, etc. IE, my discussions has felt agenda driven because it considers first order effects only. If we're going to compare apples-to-apples, I'm willing to have that conversation. If the conversation is limited to "people die during recessions", it's a pretty clear signal that agenda is driving and would not be a productive use of my time.

alexbanks 7y ago
It seems kind of ridiculous to cite "reduced deaths from pollution" as an upside while people are also being forced into confinement, no?
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  If the argument is that more people will die from economic recession, it's a necessary component. What's the rationale for excluding it? Without 2nd order effects, it doesn't seem like the correct comparison.
sharken 7y ago
We are quite a lot of people that fear the operation will be successful but the patient is dead with the Corona actions being taken. Case in point, 26.5 million americans have sought unemployment benefits (https://vastuullisuusuutiset.fi/en/weben/women-bear-brunt-of-u-s-job-losses-in-coronavirus-crisis/ https://vastuullisuusuutiset.fi/en/weben/women-bear-brunt-of...). The deaths in New York are quite telling for who is at risk, see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-death-rates-by-age-new-york-city/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-deat.... Over 90% of the dead so far are old with comorbidites such as Hypertension and Diabetes, see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/most-nyc-covid-19-dead-had-other-health-problems-city-data-show https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/most-nyc-.... So i agree that "not serious" is an accurate statement.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  Your argument supports the statement that coronavirus is not as dangerous for young people compared to old people. And that it's really serious for old people. There remains a required link to why this isn't serious for young people. And from there, an argument that this situation is better than the other scenarios (including 2nd order effects from other scenarios).
  - sharken 7y ago
    I think nobody has all the answers yet, but it looks like the state of your immune system along with age is a key factor. See https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/30/what-explains-coronavirus-lethality-for-elderly/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/30/what-explains-coronaviru... That could explain why Monaco and Japan have not seen a lot of deaths, while Italy and Spain for example have. In the US it would help immensely i think, if obesity and hypertension became a focus area when this crisis is over.
- wegs 7y ago
  That's an accurate argument for why it'd be nice if COVID19 would be not serious. Wishful thinking doesn't make it not serious. Deaths are telling for who is dead, not for who is at risk of lung damage, compromised immune system, or other consequences.
  - sharken 7y ago
    It's all in the eye of the beholder: Africa have registered 1,297 deaths with a population of 1.2 billion (https://www.africanews.com/2020/04/24/coronavirus-in-africa-breakdown-of-infected-virus-free-countries/ https://www.africanews.com/2020/04/24/coronavirus-in-africa-...). Given the fact that 8.8 million die yearly, i'd say that for Africa this disease can be classified as 'not serious'.
    - wegs 7y ago
      You're missing the point. If I break both of your legs, that's serious. You're not dead. If you catch AIDS, that's pretty serious. You're also not dead for a pretty long time. If I poke your eyes out, that's serious. You're also not dead. You've redefined a serious medical problem at one which kills you. COVID19 disables far more people than it kills. We don't know how many more, and we won't know for quite a while. With lung damage, most doctors believe the damage is permanent, but some believe people will recover in a decade or two. With other organ damage, we're just speculating.
Zach_the_Lizard 7y ago
>On 1), what do you consider "not that serious"? Death rates, hospitalization rates, etc. As mentioned before, 20% of NY deaths are nursing home patients. 37% are 80 or older. I'm on mobile and a bit lazy, but check out death rates for the flu in younger populations and compare them to this virus. The virus has a higher mortality rate but not enough to be worth worrying about in younger populations. >Regarding the cost-benefit discussion, my perspective is that people only want to discuss the downsides from a reduced economy. While keeping the benefits in mind is an important part of this analysis, the fact is the pre-quarantine deaths were already accepted as "worth it" given that there was no political will to reduce them. But yes, we should tally the reduction in deaths, pollution, etc.
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  So 13k deaths in NY (so far) are under 80 years old. That sounds pretty dangerous to me. Comparison to the flu could indicate that we underindex on all these other causes of death. It doesn't make those death numbers some magical line where now it's worth it, because Coronavirus deaths in 2 months equal annual flu deaths.
  - alexbanks 7y ago
    How many under 65? (I know the answer, I'm obviously asking very intentionally/rhetorically)
- wegs 7y ago
  If you're adding everything up, please don't omit the costs of long-term disability from COVID19-related lung damage. That swings the numbers completely. If it were just 3.6% of the US population dying, I would understand the economic versus public health argument. It comes down to values at that point: how much is a human life worth? But that changes completely when you consider how many people we'll either need to support for decades, or who will have lower economic output. Those costs get astronomical, and at least by my ballpark estimates, align public health with economic outcomes completely.

alexbanks 7y ago

It seems kind of ridiculous to cite "reduced deaths from pollution" as an upside while people are also being forced into confinement, no?

edmundsauto 7y ago
If the argument is that more people will die from economic recession, it's a necessary component. What's the rationale for excluding it? Without 2nd order effects, it doesn't seem like the correct comparison.

sharken 7y ago

We are quite a lot of people that fear the operation will be successful but the patient is dead with the Corona actions being taken. Case in point, 26.5 million americans have sought unemployment benefits (https://vastuullisuusuutiset.fi/en/weben/women-bear-brunt-of-u-s-job-losses-in-coronavirus-crisis/ https://vastuullisuusuutiset.fi/en/weben/women-bear-brunt-of...). The deaths in New York are quite telling for who is at risk, see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-death-rates-by-age-new-york-city/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109867/coronavirus-deat.... Over 90% of the dead so far are old with comorbidites such as Hypertension and Diabetes, see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/most-nyc-covid-19-dead-had-other-health-problems-city-data-show https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-25/most-nyc-.... So i agree that "not serious" is an accurate statement.

edmundsauto 7y ago
Your argument supports the statement that coronavirus is not as dangerous for young people compared to old people. And that it's really serious for old people. There remains a required link to why this isn't serious for young people. And from there, an argument that this situation is better than the other scenarios (including 2nd order effects from other scenarios).
- sharken 7y ago
  I think nobody has all the answers yet, but it looks like the state of your immune system along with age is a key factor. See https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/30/what-explains-coronavirus-lethality-for-elderly/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/30/what-explains-coronaviru... That could explain why Monaco and Japan have not seen a lot of deaths, while Italy and Spain for example have. In the US it would help immensely i think, if obesity and hypertension became a focus area when this crisis is over.
wegs 7y ago
That's an accurate argument for why it'd be nice if COVID19 would be not serious. Wishful thinking doesn't make it not serious. Deaths are telling for who is dead, not for who is at risk of lung damage, compromised immune system, or other consequences.
- sharken 7y ago
  It's all in the eye of the beholder: Africa have registered 1,297 deaths with a population of 1.2 billion (https://www.africanews.com/2020/04/24/coronavirus-in-africa-breakdown-of-infected-virus-free-countries/ https://www.africanews.com/2020/04/24/coronavirus-in-africa-...). Given the fact that 8.8 million die yearly, i'd say that for Africa this disease can be classified as 'not serious'.
  - wegs 7y ago
    You're missing the point. If I break both of your legs, that's serious. You're not dead. If you catch AIDS, that's pretty serious. You're also not dead for a pretty long time. If I poke your eyes out, that's serious. You're also not dead. You've redefined a serious medical problem at one which kills you. COVID19 disables far more people than it kills. We don't know how many more, and we won't know for quite a while. With lung damage, most doctors believe the damage is permanent, but some believe people will recover in a decade or two. With other organ damage, we're just speculating.

Zach_the_Lizard 7y ago

>On 1), what do you consider "not that serious"? Death rates, hospitalization rates, etc. As mentioned before, 20% of NY deaths are nursing home patients. 37% are 80 or older. I'm on mobile and a bit lazy, but check out death rates for the flu in younger populations and compare them to this virus. The virus has a higher mortality rate but not enough to be worth worrying about in younger populations. >Regarding the cost-benefit discussion, my perspective is that people only want to discuss the downsides from a reduced economy. While keeping the benefits in mind is an important part of this analysis, the fact is the pre-quarantine deaths were already accepted as "worth it" given that there was no political will to reduce them. But yes, we should tally the reduction in deaths, pollution, etc.

edmundsauto 7y ago
So 13k deaths in NY (so far) are under 80 years old. That sounds pretty dangerous to me. Comparison to the flu could indicate that we underindex on all these other causes of death. It doesn't make those death numbers some magical line where now it's worth it, because Coronavirus deaths in 2 months equal annual flu deaths.
- alexbanks 7y ago
  How many under 65? (I know the answer, I'm obviously asking very intentionally/rhetorically)
wegs 7y ago
If you're adding everything up, please don't omit the costs of long-term disability from COVID19-related lung damage. That swings the numbers completely. If it were just 3.6% of the US population dying, I would understand the economic versus public health argument. It comes down to values at that point: how much is a human life worth? But that changes completely when you consider how many people we'll either need to support for decades, or who will have lower economic output. Those costs get astronomical, and at least by my ballpark estimates, align public health with economic outcomes completely.