5 ms·

350k deaths sounds like a huge number, but it's important to take in account how many of those would have died anyway in the next two or three years. Dying at 8

by Udik 6y ago

350k deaths sounds like a huge number, but it's important to take in account how many of those would have died anyway in the next two or three years. Dying at 80 is not the same as dying at 20.

williamstein 6y ago
Unfortunately, it turns out that the estimate of the years of life lost due to Covid per person is significantly larger than "two or three years". For example, "New study finds coronavirus can cut life span by 10 years or more" (see https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/497097-those-who-died-from-covid-19-lost-more-than-a-decade-of https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/49...), and there are other more recent studies that go into more detail in the US looking at populations (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/how-many-years-of-life-lost-due-to-covid-more-than-138000/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/how-many-...).
- stickfigure 6y ago
  Be careful, these are years of life lost for people who died of covid. Headlines like "coronavirus can cut lifespan by 10 years or more" is just sensational - for that matter, so can bowling. The average YLL for people infected with covid is vastly smaller. You still don't want it, but the actual number is measured in months.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago
  > New study finds coronavirus can cut life span by 10 years or more This is one of the worst headlines I've seen recently. The actual study measures years lost only of those that died. By that metric, if I cross the road today and get hit by a bus, the headline would be "crossing the road can cut life span by 40 years or more". There is zero valuable information in that headline.
  - Udik 6y ago
    I don't agree. The headline contains valuable information. It says that, whatever you might think is the risk of dying once you got covid-19, on average those who died have their life shortened by about ten years. Which is not the same as dying in a traffic accident or in a war, where you can safely assume average lost lifespans of 30 or 40 years. My only issue with this title is that can- which is wrong and makes the title meaningless. The news is that on average it does cut lifespan of ten years.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    I haven't read the article above, however there's a double standard here. I've heard, e.g. John Ioannidis (one of my personal Heroes of Science©) say that Covid-19 is not that bad because the majority of the people who die of it didn't have many quality-adjusted years of life left anyway [1]. Note that's quality-adjusted years of life for people who died with/from/by Covid-19, not of all those infected, because the majority of those infected lose 0 years of life so there's not much information in that metric, either. So, yes, it does make sense to ask "how many years a person who died of Covid-19 could still enjoy had they not died of Covid-19". Just looking at how many people died of those who were infected simply ignores the fact that many people who die of Covid-19 would otherwise have gone on happily being productive and valuable members of their respective communities - and not shuffling, moaning zombies held together by arcane necromancy, waiting for a gust of wind to disintegrate. After all, while Covid-19 is very dangerous for people over 80, it is also quite dangerous for people over 50 and over 60, and those are ages where many people haven't even retired from their careers. _____________ [1] Not a direct quote, rather one from memory. I can provide the source if needed, it's a video of an hour-long interview with Ioannidis on youtube.
- nradov 6y ago
  It appears that Harvard study failed to adjust for comorbid conditions such as obesity, and thus I suspect it overestimates years of life lost. We know that obesity cuts several years off of life expectancy independent of COVID-19. The typical patient who dies from COVID-19 has multiple chronic comorbid conditions.
- anoncake 6y ago
  The number of years of life lost due to Covid is much lower. Assuming - 60% of the population get it - the IFR is 0.6% - Everyone who dies loses on average 10 years it's 60% × 0.6% × 10yr = 0.036yr. That's less than two weeks. How much more are you willing to sacrifice for less than two weeks of lifespan?
mcguire 6y ago
Life expectancy at 80 in the US is about 9 years. You have a remarkably cavalier attitude.
- refurb 6y ago
  Sure, on average. But there seems to be a lot of people in nursing homes that are dying of covid, and I assume that population likely has a lower life expectancy than the average.
- mapgrep 6y ago
  The same argument is made by the Swedish ER doctor in the linked article: “Considering that 70% of those who have died of covid are over 80 years old, quite a few of those 6,000 would have died this year anyway. That makes covid a mere blip in terms of its effect on mortality.” It’s just empirically true that dying at 80 is different from dying at 20 if you’re assessing the impact of a pandemic. I guess it needs to be pointed out that “different” has a distinct meaning from “way less tragic.”
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    The Swedish doctor also has a remarkably cavalier attitude about mortality and I'm willing to bet quite a large sum that he wouldn't be so gung-ho about it if he were 80 years old himself. It is surprising to hear someone who is supposed to care about the bodies and minds of people be such a cowboy when it comes to their lives. If it's not a big deal for people over 80 to die because "quite a few [of them] would have died this year anyway", maybe we should stop admitting people over 80 to hospitals and save the costs of their care? Does that really sound like a sensible proposition? I am reminded of the Italian scientist, Rita Levi-Montalcini who receivead a Nobel prize in physiology of medicine at 77 and continued to work and make contributions well into her last years of life until she died at 103 [1]. Of course there are exceedingly few such exceptional people, but my point is that it is perfectly possible for someone to enjoy many years of a productive life after their 80'th birthday and perhaps we should be doing more to ensure that this is not such a rare occurrence, rather than assuming that all those old fossils are dying anyway and leave them to it because them young 'uns wants to go out dancin' and drinkin'. After all, most people plan to grow old anyway. How many of us are comfortable with the idea that, in our old age, priority will be given to "the economy", not to mention the very economy we worked our arse off to keep going while we were young? What is this economy anyway, Moloch? ________ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Levi-Montalcini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Levi-Montalcini
tsherr 6y ago
Says the person who isn't 80. You're mind bogglingly unaware of perspectives outside your own.

by Udik 6y ago

350k deaths sounds like a huge number, but it's important to take in account how many of those would have died anyway in the next two or three years. Dying at 80 is not the same as dying at 20.

williamstein 6y ago

Unfortunately, it turns out that the estimate of the years of life lost due to Covid per person is significantly larger than "two or three years". For example, "New study finds coronavirus can cut life span by 10 years or more" (see https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/497097-those-who-died-from-covid-19-lost-more-than-a-decade-of https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/49...), and there are other more recent studies that go into more detail in the US looking at populations (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/how-many-years-of-life-lost-due-to-covid-more-than-138000/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/how-many-...).

stickfigure 6y ago
Be careful, these are years of life lost for people who died of covid. Headlines like "coronavirus can cut lifespan by 10 years or more" is just sensational - for that matter, so can bowling. The average YLL for people infected with covid is vastly smaller. You still don't want it, but the actual number is measured in months.
_-___________-_ 6y ago
> New study finds coronavirus can cut life span by 10 years or more This is one of the worst headlines I've seen recently. The actual study measures years lost only of those that died. By that metric, if I cross the road today and get hit by a bus, the headline would be "crossing the road can cut life span by 40 years or more". There is zero valuable information in that headline.
- Udik 6y ago
  I don't agree. The headline contains valuable information. It says that, whatever you might think is the risk of dying once you got covid-19, on average those who died have their life shortened by about ten years. Which is not the same as dying in a traffic accident or in a war, where you can safely assume average lost lifespans of 30 or 40 years. My only issue with this title is that can- which is wrong and makes the title meaningless. The news is that on average it does cut lifespan of ten years.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  I haven't read the article above, however there's a double standard here. I've heard, e.g. John Ioannidis (one of my personal Heroes of Science©) say that Covid-19 is not that bad because the majority of the people who die of it didn't have many quality-adjusted years of life left anyway [1]. Note that's quality-adjusted years of life for people who died with/from/by Covid-19, not of all those infected, because the majority of those infected lose 0 years of life so there's not much information in that metric, either. So, yes, it does make sense to ask "how many years a person who died of Covid-19 could still enjoy had they not died of Covid-19". Just looking at how many people died of those who were infected simply ignores the fact that many people who die of Covid-19 would otherwise have gone on happily being productive and valuable members of their respective communities - and not shuffling, moaning zombies held together by arcane necromancy, waiting for a gust of wind to disintegrate. After all, while Covid-19 is very dangerous for people over 80, it is also quite dangerous for people over 50 and over 60, and those are ages where many people haven't even retired from their careers. _____________ [1] Not a direct quote, rather one from memory. I can provide the source if needed, it's a video of an hour-long interview with Ioannidis on youtube.
nradov 6y ago
It appears that Harvard study failed to adjust for comorbid conditions such as obesity, and thus I suspect it overestimates years of life lost. We know that obesity cuts several years off of life expectancy independent of COVID-19. The typical patient who dies from COVID-19 has multiple chronic comorbid conditions.
anoncake 6y ago
The number of years of life lost due to Covid is much lower. Assuming - 60% of the population get it - the IFR is 0.6% - Everyone who dies loses on average 10 years it's 60% × 0.6% × 10yr = 0.036yr. That's less than two weeks. How much more are you willing to sacrifice for less than two weeks of lifespan?

mcguire 6y ago

Life expectancy at 80 in the US is about 9 years. You have a remarkably cavalier attitude.

refurb 6y ago
Sure, on average. But there seems to be a lot of people in nursing homes that are dying of covid, and I assume that population likely has a lower life expectancy than the average.
mapgrep 6y ago
The same argument is made by the Swedish ER doctor in the linked article: “Considering that 70% of those who have died of covid are over 80 years old, quite a few of those 6,000 would have died this year anyway. That makes covid a mere blip in terms of its effect on mortality.” It’s just empirically true that dying at 80 is different from dying at 20 if you’re assessing the impact of a pandemic. I guess it needs to be pointed out that “different” has a distinct meaning from “way less tragic.”
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  The Swedish doctor also has a remarkably cavalier attitude about mortality and I'm willing to bet quite a large sum that he wouldn't be so gung-ho about it if he were 80 years old himself. It is surprising to hear someone who is supposed to care about the bodies and minds of people be such a cowboy when it comes to their lives. If it's not a big deal for people over 80 to die because "quite a few [of them] would have died this year anyway", maybe we should stop admitting people over 80 to hospitals and save the costs of their care? Does that really sound like a sensible proposition? I am reminded of the Italian scientist, Rita Levi-Montalcini who receivead a Nobel prize in physiology of medicine at 77 and continued to work and make contributions well into her last years of life until she died at 103 [1]. Of course there are exceedingly few such exceptional people, but my point is that it is perfectly possible for someone to enjoy many years of a productive life after their 80'th birthday and perhaps we should be doing more to ensure that this is not such a rare occurrence, rather than assuming that all those old fossils are dying anyway and leave them to it because them young 'uns wants to go out dancin' and drinkin'. After all, most people plan to grow old anyway. How many of us are comfortable with the idea that, in our old age, priority will be given to "the economy", not to mention the very economy we worked our arse off to keep going while we were young? What is this economy anyway, Moloch? ________ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Levi-Montalcini https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Levi-Montalcini

tsherr 6y ago

Says the person who isn't 80. You're mind bogglingly unaware of perspectives outside your own.