7 ms·

This entire discussion seems to miss the point that it is not black-and-white. Every year, tens of thousands of people in the US die from influenza. But the ec

This entire discussion seems to miss the point that it is not black-and-white. Every year, tens of thousands of people in the US die from influenza. But the economy is not shutdown to prevent this. We recognise that the cost of tens of millions of dollars per life saved is not worth it. People seem to think it's morally bankrupt to put a cost on saving lives. But that is what we (as a society) do every day. Every healthcare system puts a price on each treatment. In the US the patient (or insurance) pays for it. In the UK an ethics council will determine if that is a good use of the finite money the system has. But in order to have a proper discussion about this, we need to have some numbers. How many lives will be saved, how much will it cost? Is "lives saved" even the right metric? Any article that hand-waves away the numbers is worthless. A thought experiment for both sides: at some point your opinion would change, for/against the lockdown. How much more or how much less deadly would COVID-19 have to be for you to change your mind?

anoncareer0212 6y ago
You're repeating the article with some grandiose hand-waving to compare it to the flu, when it's already killed 5x any flu season in just 4 months :/
- Jabbles 6y ago
  I don't think you read my comment at all.
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    Gotcha, in that case I think the point got lost in the mix. Would love to engage with it more though, seems like you're passionate and knowledgable about this.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    The problem is you start by comparing this to the flu. People are going to stop reading after that because it's generally a pattern of another idiot rambling. Don't write in that pattern if you don't want people to interpret it in that pattern.
    - Jabbles 6y ago
      Yes judging from the responses that seems to be what happened. Maybe I could compare it to car accidents - we don't ban driving because the costs would be enormous. I hope that doesn't spawn replies about self-driving cars...
      - anoncareer0212 6y ago
        Hey, we love discussion on HN, we honestly want to hear more from you - but we try to avoid the sort of meta-conversations where people end up reading their interlocutors as a united opposition with strawman positions. You should totally reply to them with more info about what you're trying to say, they're probably being honest about being confused :)
      - aaomidi 6y ago
        Well, the difference between this and your examples is that it was a novel situation. The question always comes to would you rather over react or under react to a novel pandemic? It's also interesting that this conversation about economics isn't spreading more towards alright now that we have this lock down are there any monetary policy changes we can make to allow us to adapt to this? Many other countries have dealt with the economic consequences of the lockdown better than the US, despite being poorer countries.
- wk_end 6y ago
  Apologies for the pedantry, but whether you're looking at national (US) or international numbers, COVID-19 has killed "only" about as many people as a flu season. ~300k have died from COVID-19 in the world, which matches the WHO's estimate of 290k to 650k per year for the flu, and ~80k in the US almost exactly matches American numbers for the flu a couple of years ago [2] [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(... [2] https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/ https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter... Moreover, comparing the flu season to "just 4 months" is disingenuous. That's...roughly as long or even longer than what most people consider the flu season. Of course, this is due to the lockdowns. I'm not trying to make the case that COVID-19 is "just a flu". we'd almost certainly be seeing much worse numbers if people weren't social distancing or whatever. And we're not finished yet.
  - DanBC 6y ago
    You are not counting flu and covid using the same methods, which is causing you to either undercount covid deaths or overcount flu deaths. If you count covid and flu using the same method you see far more covid deaths. Here for covid you're using "died after testing positive for covid", and for flu you're using "died after testing positive for flu or with presumed flu". You can see these are different.
    - wk_end 6y ago
      Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was doing that - I'm just using the official numbers I've got on hand. Can you provide any sources that provide an estimate that better lines up with the claim that COVID has "already killed 5x [more than] any flu season"? I know that different states and countries are reporting COVID deaths differently. I've seen "shutdown skeptics" claim that the reason Belgium and New York and Sweden's official numbers look so bad is because of this: supposedly they're using a methodology closer to the one you claim is being used to source the flu numbers, unlike everyone else. So I don't think my official numbers are purely what you claim they are, but probably a mix of different methodologies. Even if on balance that's producing an undercount, do we have evidence for something like an undercount by a factor of five? The former I'd be happy to accept, the latter is a bit of an extraordinary claim and calls for the evidence to match. Neither of my sources for the flu numbers say their number was derived in the way you're suggesting - the US one in particular says that it's an estimate using a statistical model rather than a count anything like what you're saying. Did I miss something in the sources?
- mcphage 6y ago
  > in just 4 months Well, mostly in just 1 month—we entered April with around 5,000 US deaths, and exited it with over 60,000. So that's about 55,000 deaths in a single month.
philjohn 6y ago
The issue with comparing it with the flu is that people who are at an increased risk of serious complications have the vaccine made readily available to them - yes, each flu season there are spikes in cases, and deaths, and yes, some hospitals (especially in densely populated areas) struggle to cope - but it's kept somewhat at bay.
- greglindahl 6y ago
  The flu vaccine is less effective some years than others (3 guesses per year, sometimes they guess wrong), and is definitely less effective in very old people, who have less of an immune system left. That's why the recommendation has shifted (in the US, other developed countries shifted longer ago) for everyone to get the vaccine, not just the people at risk of serious complications. So I agree that there's no reason to compare COVID-19 with the flu, but your description of the vaccine doesn't appear to be that accurate.
  - philjohn 6y ago
    It is indeed less effective some years than others, which is when hospitals tend to suffer stress with usage levels. As for very old people, yes, also true, but care givers are often immunised to decrease the risk to that population.
fxtentacle 6y ago
But isn't this article very much presenting every nuanced piece of information as a black/white immutable fact?
watwut 6y ago
First, when influenza spreads too much in some place, few schools are closed to control spread. Also, hospitals get closed to visits. Typically that is enough to get it under control. Second, confirmed covid deaths already exceeded estimated influenza deaths. This is covid with lockdown and not finished yet versus influenza overall. That is without comparing how long are you sick if you get sick and without comparing possible long term consequences of disease. I mean, by the start of it influenza comparison made sense. At this point, it does not.

anoncareer0212 6y ago

You're repeating the article with some grandiose hand-waving to compare it to the flu, when it's already killed 5x any flu season in just 4 months :/

Jabbles 6y ago
I don't think you read my comment at all.
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  Gotcha, in that case I think the point got lost in the mix. Would love to engage with it more though, seems like you're passionate and knowledgable about this.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  The problem is you start by comparing this to the flu. People are going to stop reading after that because it's generally a pattern of another idiot rambling. Don't write in that pattern if you don't want people to interpret it in that pattern.
  - Jabbles 6y ago
    Yes judging from the responses that seems to be what happened. Maybe I could compare it to car accidents - we don't ban driving because the costs would be enormous. I hope that doesn't spawn replies about self-driving cars...
    - anoncareer0212 6y ago
      Hey, we love discussion on HN, we honestly want to hear more from you - but we try to avoid the sort of meta-conversations where people end up reading their interlocutors as a united opposition with strawman positions. You should totally reply to them with more info about what you're trying to say, they're probably being honest about being confused :)
    - aaomidi 6y ago
      Well, the difference between this and your examples is that it was a novel situation. The question always comes to would you rather over react or under react to a novel pandemic? It's also interesting that this conversation about economics isn't spreading more towards alright now that we have this lock down are there any monetary policy changes we can make to allow us to adapt to this? Many other countries have dealt with the economic consequences of the lockdown better than the US, despite being poorer countries.
wk_end 6y ago
Apologies for the pedantry, but whether you're looking at national (US) or international numbers, COVID-19 has killed "only" about as many people as a flu season. ~300k have died from COVID-19 in the world, which matches the WHO's estimate of 290k to 650k per year for the flu, and ~80k in the US almost exactly matches American numbers for the flu a couple of years ago [2] [1] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(seasonal) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/influenza-(... [2] https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/ https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter... Moreover, comparing the flu season to "just 4 months" is disingenuous. That's...roughly as long or even longer than what most people consider the flu season. Of course, this is due to the lockdowns. I'm not trying to make the case that COVID-19 is "just a flu". we'd almost certainly be seeing much worse numbers if people weren't social distancing or whatever. And we're not finished yet.
- DanBC 6y ago
  You are not counting flu and covid using the same methods, which is causing you to either undercount covid deaths or overcount flu deaths. If you count covid and flu using the same method you see far more covid deaths. Here for covid you're using "died after testing positive for covid", and for flu you're using "died after testing positive for flu or with presumed flu". You can see these are different.
  - wk_end 6y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't aware that I was doing that - I'm just using the official numbers I've got on hand. Can you provide any sources that provide an estimate that better lines up with the claim that COVID has "already killed 5x [more than] any flu season"? I know that different states and countries are reporting COVID deaths differently. I've seen "shutdown skeptics" claim that the reason Belgium and New York and Sweden's official numbers look so bad is because of this: supposedly they're using a methodology closer to the one you claim is being used to source the flu numbers, unlike everyone else. So I don't think my official numbers are purely what you claim they are, but probably a mix of different methodologies. Even if on balance that's producing an undercount, do we have evidence for something like an undercount by a factor of five? The former I'd be happy to accept, the latter is a bit of an extraordinary claim and calls for the evidence to match. Neither of my sources for the flu numbers say their number was derived in the way you're suggesting - the US one in particular says that it's an estimate using a statistical model rather than a count anything like what you're saying. Did I miss something in the sources?
mcphage 6y ago
> in just 4 months Well, mostly in just 1 month—we entered April with around 5,000 US deaths, and exited it with over 60,000. So that's about 55,000 deaths in a single month.

philjohn 6y ago

The issue with comparing it with the flu is that people who are at an increased risk of serious complications have the vaccine made readily available to them - yes, each flu season there are spikes in cases, and deaths, and yes, some hospitals (especially in densely populated areas) struggle to cope - but it's kept somewhat at bay.

greglindahl 6y ago
The flu vaccine is less effective some years than others (3 guesses per year, sometimes they guess wrong), and is definitely less effective in very old people, who have less of an immune system left. That's why the recommendation has shifted (in the US, other developed countries shifted longer ago) for everyone to get the vaccine, not just the people at risk of serious complications. So I agree that there's no reason to compare COVID-19 with the flu, but your description of the vaccine doesn't appear to be that accurate.
- philjohn 6y ago
  It is indeed less effective some years than others, which is when hospitals tend to suffer stress with usage levels. As for very old people, yes, also true, but care givers are often immunised to decrease the risk to that population.

fxtentacle 6y ago

But isn't this article very much presenting every nuanced piece of information as a black/white immutable fact?

watwut 6y ago

First, when influenza spreads too much in some place, few schools are closed to control spread. Also, hospitals get closed to visits. Typically that is enough to get it under control. Second, confirmed covid deaths already exceeded estimated influenza deaths. This is covid with lockdown and not finished yet versus influenza overall. That is without comparing how long are you sick if you get sick and without comparing possible long term consequences of disease. I mean, by the start of it influenza comparison made sense. At this point, it does not.