5 ms·

And they’d be right: Someone over 70 is 270x as likely to die of COVID as someone under 50. For anyone under 50 without co-morbidity, then this is just a yearl

And they’d be right: Someone over 70 is 270x as likely to die of COVID as someone under 50. For anyone under 50 without co-morbidity, then this is just a yearly flu — and destroying your economic future over the flu doesn’t make sense. Having a blanket policy that ignores those differences is unrealistic. IFR numbers are from the CDC’s best estimate: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scena...

doctor_eval 6y ago
So... now we are having a conversation about why one group of 400K people is more worthy of saving than another?
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  I think, clearly, that there is a debate to be had about the value of lives that are nearly at an end no matter what, and lives that are just hitting their prime.
  - doctor_eval 6y ago
    Someone who is 60 or even 70 is not necessarily “nearly at an end”. Just ask either of your presidents.
- nradov 6y ago
  That conversation has been going on since long before COVID-19. For example age is one factor in allocating scarce transplant organs. Other countries with socialized healthcare systems sometimes explicitly use Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) in deciding whether to pay for expensive treatments for elderly patients.
  - doctor_eval 6y ago
    We are talking about a whole percent of the US population here, not just the tiny fraction that requires organ transplants.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      So is he. QALY analysis is used to allocate all treatment in places like the UK, realistically in other places too. Basically a very expensive treatment that is only expected to increase your lifespan by a few months if you're already very elderly may not get funded if there are other interventions with better cost/benefit ratios available in the queue. This obviously affects nearly 100% of the population in the sense that most people will make it to old age, and even the non-elderly are affected by getting treatment they otherwise might not have done.
    - AnHonestComment 6y ago
      No — we’re talking about half a percent of the US population (10x flu), with deaths heavily concentrated among the elderly and infirm. That sucks — but shutting down the economy for nine months is going to send huge numbers of the young to early graves, through deconditioning related illness, domestic violence PTSD, and substance abuse. This policy is QALY negative, even if it ostensibly “saves lives”. It’s grotesque Boomers are harming their children and grandchildren like this, but not unexpected given the other betrayals of future generations.
- matz1 6y ago
  Not saying that those 400K doesn't deserve to be saved, they are absolutely deserve the care but if you are doing it at the huge expense for other people then conversation is unavoidable.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    doing it at the huge expense for other people Begs the question. You build in the assumption that policy responses to a pandemic will harm the economy, and then don't do any work to establish that policy responses in this pandemic have prioritized lives over the economy, or to demonstrate that policy responses that weren't used would have been similar, etc.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  Hospital ERs don’t steal blood from young patients who could survive a donation to save patients bleeding out. Blood has to be donated because inflicting unwanted harm to innocents — even to save a life — is against medical ethics. How does the COVID response align with those ethics? People in high risk groups should absolutely self isolate, avoid restaurants, etc — but them needing to do so isn’t a reason to deny a 20 year old a cancer screening or a job to afford food, no. I also think it’s telling your response to me posting facts from the CDC is an unsourced emotional appeal.
maxerickson 6y ago
Hey, good news. We have pretty strong evidence that our policy choices have been geared towards letting the elderly die. (I'm talking about all the elderly that died if it isn't clear what evidence I'm referring to) Of course, the awful thing is that controlling the virus in May (I mean actually doing it, not just having a pause) would have been better for the economy. But we are too stupid for that.
- throwaway201103 6y ago
  Elderly people die. That's what happens when you're elderly. For many reasons.

doctor_eval 6y ago

So... now we are having a conversation about why one group of 400K people is more worthy of saving than another?

throwaway201103 6y ago
I think, clearly, that there is a debate to be had about the value of lives that are nearly at an end no matter what, and lives that are just hitting their prime.
- doctor_eval 6y ago
  Someone who is 60 or even 70 is not necessarily “nearly at an end”. Just ask either of your presidents.
nradov 6y ago
That conversation has been going on since long before COVID-19. For example age is one factor in allocating scarce transplant organs. Other countries with socialized healthcare systems sometimes explicitly use Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) in deciding whether to pay for expensive treatments for elderly patients.
- doctor_eval 6y ago
  We are talking about a whole percent of the US population here, not just the tiny fraction that requires organ transplants.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    So is he. QALY analysis is used to allocate all treatment in places like the UK, realistically in other places too. Basically a very expensive treatment that is only expected to increase your lifespan by a few months if you're already very elderly may not get funded if there are other interventions with better cost/benefit ratios available in the queue. This obviously affects nearly 100% of the population in the sense that most people will make it to old age, and even the non-elderly are affected by getting treatment they otherwise might not have done.
  - AnHonestComment 6y ago
    No — we’re talking about half a percent of the US population (10x flu), with deaths heavily concentrated among the elderly and infirm. That sucks — but shutting down the economy for nine months is going to send huge numbers of the young to early graves, through deconditioning related illness, domestic violence PTSD, and substance abuse. This policy is QALY negative, even if it ostensibly “saves lives”. It’s grotesque Boomers are harming their children and grandchildren like this, but not unexpected given the other betrayals of future generations.
matz1 6y ago
Not saying that those 400K doesn't deserve to be saved, they are absolutely deserve the care but if you are doing it at the huge expense for other people then conversation is unavoidable.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  doing it at the huge expense for other people Begs the question. You build in the assumption that policy responses to a pandemic will harm the economy, and then don't do any work to establish that policy responses in this pandemic have prioritized lives over the economy, or to demonstrate that policy responses that weren't used would have been similar, etc.
AnHonestComment 6y ago
Hospital ERs don’t steal blood from young patients who could survive a donation to save patients bleeding out. Blood has to be donated because inflicting unwanted harm to innocents — even to save a life — is against medical ethics. How does the COVID response align with those ethics? People in high risk groups should absolutely self isolate, avoid restaurants, etc — but them needing to do so isn’t a reason to deny a 20 year old a cancer screening or a job to afford food, no. I also think it’s telling your response to me posting facts from the CDC is an unsourced emotional appeal.

maxerickson 6y ago

Hey, good news. We have pretty strong evidence that our policy choices have been geared towards letting the elderly die. (I'm talking about all the elderly that died if it isn't clear what evidence I'm referring to) Of course, the awful thing is that controlling the virus in May (I mean actually doing it, not just having a pause) would have been better for the economy. But we are too stupid for that.

throwaway201103 6y ago
Elderly people die. That's what happens when you're elderly. For many reasons.