4 ms·

The lives involved are mostly not economically productive. (This is not to say they aren't very valuable and worth living, just that your quip is incorrect) In

The lives involved are mostly not economically productive. (This is not to say they aren't very valuable and worth living, just that your quip is incorrect) In my view, lives are for living. A rampant covid 19 (which we'll probably get any way) would cost a few months of life expectancy. I'm unconvinced preventing many from living their lives to the fullest for months in the hopes that covid 19 will magically disappear is worthwhile.

chimprich 7y ago
> in the hopes that covid 19 will magically disappear That is not any country's strategy anywhere.
- concordDance 7y ago
  Dunno about other countries, but here in the UK we don't seem to have a real exit strategy at all. I haven't seen any mention in the news of any other country's long term covid19 plan either. They haven't even come out and said "we just need to wait for a vaccine"...
  - chimprich 7y ago
    The UK's strategy is lockdown to counteract the initial explosion where we allowed the initial outbreak to get out of control, then gradually release the lockdown whilst keeping R under 1. Keeping R under 1 is is to be done with a combination of social distancing, human contact tracing, an app, testing, quarantines etc. If R is under 1, your cases trend towards 0. Eventually the outbreak ends when you get a vaccine or the measures reduce your cases to 0. No guarantees that it'll work but I don't see why it can't work in theory. You'll probably have occasional flare ups and course corrections but it should get easier over time as total infections reduce and our understanding of the disease improves and testing improves.
    - concordDance 7y ago
      Do you have a source for that being the UK's plan? Also, it'll take over a year to get a vaccine or cases to 0 at current rates. And then you need to stop people getting into the country who have it again.
hyko 7y ago
It’s very difficult to live life to the max when you’re dead, or in hospital for weeks. The idea that a rampant COVID-19 would cost a few months of life expectancy, or that victims of the virus are not economically productive is not supported by the evidence we do have, e.g. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/02/would-most-covid-19-victims-have-died-soon-without-the-virus https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/02/would-mo... We all want the lockdown to end as soon possible, but when we do it, we need to do it right or else risk magnifying the economic and human toll the pandemic is taking. The lockdown is a bridge to a world of virus suppression, which in turn is a bridge to medical solutions that will eliminate SARS-CoV-2 from the human population, everywhere on earth, for good.
- concordDance 7y ago
  I don't see how that graph supports your point. It seems to be about years of life lost per death, rather than years of life lost per infection. It's also not correct stats to bucket data this strongly as you end up assuming that the dead are a representative sample of the population in your buckets (in this case, age and number of conditions). For example, if there are two subpopulations in each bucket, one with a much lower remaining life expectancy and much higher rate of death from covid19 (fixing age bucket and number of pre-existing conditions), then you'll end up vastly overstating the numbers. (An example subpopulation here could be men/women or people with a pre-existing condition that slightly/severely complicates a covid19 infection) I can't read the article, so let me know if the above is addressed.
  - hyko 7y ago
    My apologies for the paywall link and for the fact that the study doesn’t really support all the points I was trying to make. I take your point about not assuming the breakdown of the deceased group is representative of the general population. Original paper is here: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75 https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75 The article does go on to make the claim that 20% of the deceased would be individuals in their 50s and 60s, a cohort willing and able to make substantial contributions to productivity. That runs counter to the notion that the virus would just run it’s scythe through people who would be on their death beds anyway. I would say this argument sounds like a special case of the broken window fallacy, and that allowing people to die is just a poor economic policy. Just because you’re not producing, doesn’t mean you’re economically inert–removing retirees and even care home residents from the economy would represent a significant reduction in demand, with the attendant economic headaches that creates.

chimprich 7y ago

> in the hopes that covid 19 will magically disappear That is not any country's strategy anywhere.

concordDance 7y ago
Dunno about other countries, but here in the UK we don't seem to have a real exit strategy at all. I haven't seen any mention in the news of any other country's long term covid19 plan either. They haven't even come out and said "we just need to wait for a vaccine"...
- chimprich 7y ago
  The UK's strategy is lockdown to counteract the initial explosion where we allowed the initial outbreak to get out of control, then gradually release the lockdown whilst keeping R under 1. Keeping R under 1 is is to be done with a combination of social distancing, human contact tracing, an app, testing, quarantines etc. If R is under 1, your cases trend towards 0. Eventually the outbreak ends when you get a vaccine or the measures reduce your cases to 0. No guarantees that it'll work but I don't see why it can't work in theory. You'll probably have occasional flare ups and course corrections but it should get easier over time as total infections reduce and our understanding of the disease improves and testing improves.
  - concordDance 7y ago
    Do you have a source for that being the UK's plan? Also, it'll take over a year to get a vaccine or cases to 0 at current rates. And then you need to stop people getting into the country who have it again.

hyko 7y ago

It’s very difficult to live life to the max when you’re dead, or in hospital for weeks. The idea that a rampant COVID-19 would cost a few months of life expectancy, or that victims of the virus are not economically productive is not supported by the evidence we do have, e.g. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/02/would-most-covid-19-victims-have-died-soon-without-the-virus https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/05/02/would-mo... We all want the lockdown to end as soon possible, but when we do it, we need to do it right or else risk magnifying the economic and human toll the pandemic is taking. The lockdown is a bridge to a world of virus suppression, which in turn is a bridge to medical solutions that will eliminate SARS-CoV-2 from the human population, everywhere on earth, for good.

concordDance 7y ago
I don't see how that graph supports your point. It seems to be about years of life lost per death, rather than years of life lost per infection. It's also not correct stats to bucket data this strongly as you end up assuming that the dead are a representative sample of the population in your buckets (in this case, age and number of conditions). For example, if there are two subpopulations in each bucket, one with a much lower remaining life expectancy and much higher rate of death from covid19 (fixing age bucket and number of pre-existing conditions), then you'll end up vastly overstating the numbers. (An example subpopulation here could be men/women or people with a pre-existing condition that slightly/severely complicates a covid19 infection) I can't read the article, so let me know if the above is addressed.
- hyko 7y ago
  My apologies for the paywall link and for the fact that the study doesn’t really support all the points I was trying to make. I take your point about not assuming the breakdown of the deceased group is representative of the general population. Original paper is here: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75 https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75 The article does go on to make the claim that 20% of the deceased would be individuals in their 50s and 60s, a cohort willing and able to make substantial contributions to productivity. That runs counter to the notion that the virus would just run it’s scythe through people who would be on their death beds anyway. I would say this argument sounds like a special case of the broken window fallacy, and that allowing people to die is just a poor economic policy. Just because you’re not producing, doesn’t mean you’re economically inert–removing retirees and even care home residents from the economy would represent a significant reduction in demand, with the attendant economic headaches that creates.