5 ms·

> If you do the math, Iceland lost about 120 extra years of life The problem with "extra years of life" metrics is that they artificially play down the death w

> If you do the math, Iceland lost about 120 extra years of life The problem with "extra years of life" metrics is that they artificially play down the death wave on older segments of the population, as if those dying from covid19 who happen to be older than 40yo should not matter to society. The consequences of this nonsensical pick of statistics indicators is that a death wave of thousands of people per day that happens to hit harder on the > 40yo segment is watered down with "all this just to gain 3 hours of life" nonsense, as if all the coffins were only piling up because instead of being delivered on scheduled they needed to be delivered 3 hours earlier.

mewpmewp2 6y ago
So someone with 1 day left in their life is equal to someone with 70 years? It does seem to me that a more just system would consider "time lost" as a metric since surely it can't be binary.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > So someone with 1 day left in their life is equal to someone with 70 years? You're the one trying to quantify the value of life. To me, my parents and grandparents are more important than your 1yo son/daughter, so YMMV. Still, you're missing the whole point. The point is that it makes absolutely no sense to downplay an epidemic just because it hits hardest on those suffering from pre-existing medical conditions or being over 40. The coffins piling up on makeshift morgues make it quite obvious that the real effect of the death wave is not anticipating death by a couple of hours, and it matters nothing if those doing the dying are sick, old, or disabled.
  - randomsearch 6y ago
    Wow, you’d sacrifice a 1yo to save your grandparents? I find that genuinely shocking.
    - colde 6y ago
      I think the argument is more akin to not sacrificing anybody, and trying to save everyone.
      - mewpmewp2 6y ago
        But in real world that is not possible. There's somewhere a line you have to draw. How many man-hours would you be willing to spend to save someone who would die in a week anyway? According to that logic you should have all 7+ billion people working that whole week to keep this person alive. Would the man-hours spent saving that person have to be exactly the same as saving someone who has further life expectancy of 70 years?
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        That's not really the choice here. The choice is we squelch the virus and my dad and his grand children get to see each other again. Vs you not being inconvenienced.
        mewpmewp2 6y ago
        Since you are trying to make things personal... I'm personally not inconvenienced, I love WFH and having a good reason not to meet people. So once again is that choice also appropriate if 7+ bln people have to spend 3 months working in order to save your dad? Obviously a lot of other people die because if they have to work 3 months saving your father it means the doctors are not saving other people, we won't have food etc. I'm trying to show that there must be a line drawn somewhere and it can't be binary.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        You're pretending that the economic dislocations are do to measures to combate the virus instead of the virus killing people. Countries that acted swiftly and forcefully are returning to normal right now. While countries that are handling the way you want are seeing no end to this. Meaning you are 180 degrees wrong, your way kills people from the virus. You way kills people via extended economic dislocation.
  - mewpmewp2 6y ago
    So are you saying it's entirely binary? It's either terrible and should be avoided at all costs, or it's no-one dying? You are bringing out facts such as "coffins are piling up" etc, this fact could be true if in one morgue in two places in the world there were coffins piling up. Maybe these morgues can only handle 5 deaths at once and now there's 5 more for each? You need to quantify things to understand how bad they are. Otherwise these statements are meaningless. You are essentially quantifying - any statement you do you is actually quantifying. For instance if you bring out the argument about coffins piling you seem to be considering potentially 10 deaths (which could cause coffins piling) to be the same as the whole world population dying.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > So are you saying it's entirely binary? I'm stating the exact opposite: that crudely abusing statistics to pretend that people over 40 don't count for nothing because they will die in a few years is abhorrent, and downplays the real impact of the whole covid death wave.

mewpmewp2 6y ago

So someone with 1 day left in their life is equal to someone with 70 years? It does seem to me that a more just system would consider "time lost" as a metric since surely it can't be binary.

rumanator 6y ago
> So someone with 1 day left in their life is equal to someone with 70 years? You're the one trying to quantify the value of life. To me, my parents and grandparents are more important than your 1yo son/daughter, so YMMV. Still, you're missing the whole point. The point is that it makes absolutely no sense to downplay an epidemic just because it hits hardest on those suffering from pre-existing medical conditions or being over 40. The coffins piling up on makeshift morgues make it quite obvious that the real effect of the death wave is not anticipating death by a couple of hours, and it matters nothing if those doing the dying are sick, old, or disabled.
- randomsearch 6y ago
  Wow, you’d sacrifice a 1yo to save your grandparents? I find that genuinely shocking.
  - colde 6y ago
    I think the argument is more akin to not sacrificing anybody, and trying to save everyone.
    - mewpmewp2 6y ago
      But in real world that is not possible. There's somewhere a line you have to draw. How many man-hours would you be willing to spend to save someone who would die in a week anyway? According to that logic you should have all 7+ billion people working that whole week to keep this person alive. Would the man-hours spent saving that person have to be exactly the same as saving someone who has further life expectancy of 70 years?
      - Gibbon1 6y ago
        That's not really the choice here. The choice is we squelch the virus and my dad and his grand children get to see each other again. Vs you not being inconvenienced.
        mewpmewp2 6y ago
        Since you are trying to make things personal... I'm personally not inconvenienced, I love WFH and having a good reason not to meet people. So once again is that choice also appropriate if 7+ bln people have to spend 3 months working in order to save your dad? Obviously a lot of other people die because if they have to work 3 months saving your father it means the doctors are not saving other people, we won't have food etc. I'm trying to show that there must be a line drawn somewhere and it can't be binary.
        Gibbon1 6y ago
        You're pretending that the economic dislocations are do to measures to combate the virus instead of the virus killing people. Countries that acted swiftly and forcefully are returning to normal right now. While countries that are handling the way you want are seeing no end to this. Meaning you are 180 degrees wrong, your way kills people from the virus. You way kills people via extended economic dislocation.
- mewpmewp2 6y ago
  So are you saying it's entirely binary? It's either terrible and should be avoided at all costs, or it's no-one dying? You are bringing out facts such as "coffins are piling up" etc, this fact could be true if in one morgue in two places in the world there were coffins piling up. Maybe these morgues can only handle 5 deaths at once and now there's 5 more for each? You need to quantify things to understand how bad they are. Otherwise these statements are meaningless. You are essentially quantifying - any statement you do you is actually quantifying. For instance if you bring out the argument about coffins piling you seem to be considering potentially 10 deaths (which could cause coffins piling) to be the same as the whole world population dying.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > So are you saying it's entirely binary? I'm stating the exact opposite: that crudely abusing statistics to pretend that people over 40 don't count for nothing because they will die in a few years is abhorrent, and downplays the real impact of the whole covid death wave.