5 ms·

Most people don't lose their jobs/businesses/careers and kill themselves the next day or even the next month, but that doesn't mean that their eventual decline

by abduhl 6y ago

Most people don't lose their jobs/businesses/careers and kill themselves the next day or even the next month, but that doesn't mean that their eventual decline into depression and suicide wasn't triggered by that loss. And not to get into such a charged discussion, but it's also important to look at the ages of those dying of COVID versus those dying because of how we reacted to COVID.

iso1631 6y ago
Yes the effects may last a long time, much of the effects should be mittigated by government though (suicide is often because of financial issues - something that governments can fix by issuing a new-deal style work program post vaccination to reboot the economy) However if Covid ran wild and infected 70% of the UK, and assuming no healthcare collapse, based on medium IFR figures from https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/ https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/ There would be 38,413 deaths for those age 45-64 and 3,037 deaths for those age 25-44 In addition to the 100k 65-74 year olds, and the 350k 75+ Even if you felt those were acceptable figures, how would you deal with healthcare collapse? Decide to withhold hospital treatment from over 65s?
- abduhl 6y ago
  A government known for its austerity measures is going to mitigate its citizens' financial issues? I find that hard to believe. I'm not going to engage with someone over the internet about the weighing of people's quality of life years or which side of the fence I come down on there. My post was merely pointing out that extrapolating a suicide rate for 2Q 2020 to the total suicide death number was in error.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    > A government known for its austerity measures is going to mitigate its citizens' financial issues? At least it’s possible. Last I checked death was impossible to mitigate.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- crateandarrow 6y ago
  I don’t mean to diminish the gravity of such numbers but don’t projections like this ignore asymptomatic cases? How many of those projected to die here have already contacted it but are immune for whatever reason and never got tested? The death rates across age ranges can only account for confirmed deaths and cases in that range, no? Without testing every single person in an age range we can’t make accurate projections because we can’t know the percentage of “immune” people, no?
  - thomasz 6y ago
    Yes, they do. There is obviously some guesswork involved, but after several seroprevalence studies, these arguments can be laid to rest. There is no giant iceberg of undetected cases, we’re still in the beginning of the pandemic, and IFR is frighteningly high. Especially in older populations.
  - saberdancer 6y ago
    They don't ignore asymptomatic cases. IFR is calculated using symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. It's total % of people that die if they get infected, symptomatic or not. Studies are showing Covid-19 has IFR of 0.5-1% in western world (due to age). This means if 100% of England got infected, 0.5 to 1% would die. This is not counting that if hospitals got overwhelmed, IFR would increase.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    The figures I used were median figure in the range, with modern intervention techniques (theraputic drugs etc) The range (95%ile I think) for 45-65 year old was 0.24% - 0.41%, median 0.32%. The full details are on the link.
CraigJPerry 6y ago
>> that doesn't mean that their eventual decline into depression and suicide wasn't triggered by that loss It's not just loss of jobs/businesses/careers - loss of loved ones to COVID can be a cause of depression too. Allowing more COVID deaths could increase suicides.
onethought 6y ago
Why is it important to look at the age? You are implying that human life degrades in value as people age. To take your view to it's logical conclusion: We should harvest living old peoples organs to save babies.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  QALY is standard medical practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year I understand it makes people squeamish, but the medical profession triages lives and decides treatments every day. Doing something QALY negative is malpractice — and lockdowns are QALY negative because they harm the young to save the old/infirm.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    FYI your comments are showing as dead by default, time for a new account.
  - onethought 6y ago
    But that is to decide on resource allocation, i.e: I have 2 people, and 1 me, which one do I help. That isn't used by governments to decide on health or economic policy. Else we'd ban old people from hospitals (and save trillions in the process!) and in general make their lives a misery (high tax, low benefits) because their "value" would be approaching 0.
    - henrikschroder 6y ago
      Uh, QALY is definitely used by governments to decide on health and economic policy, but not in the absurd utilitarian way you're imagining. For example, it's used to prioritize people in transplant queues. The more "use" you can get out of a new organ, the more you'll be prioritized, but it's not the only decider.
      - onethought 6y ago
jandrewrogers 6y ago
FWIW, I personally know a couple very successful restauranteurs who descended into despondency and alcoholism to the point where they are effectively non-functional and will likely never open a restaurant again. These people aren’t accounted for in the damage but they are shadows of their former contributions to society. These people aren’t dead but they are asymptotically close to it for all practical purposes. Even if things opened up tomorrow they would have nowhere to go.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by abduhl 6y ago

iso1631 6y ago

Yes the effects may last a long time, much of the effects should be mittigated by government though (suicide is often because of financial issues - something that governments can fix by issuing a new-deal style work program post vaccination to reboot the economy) However if Covid ran wild and infected 70% of the UK, and assuming no healthcare collapse, based on medium IFR figures from https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/ https://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/now-casting/ There would be 38,413 deaths for those age 45-64 and 3,037 deaths for those age 25-44 In addition to the 100k 65-74 year olds, and the 350k 75+ Even if you felt those were acceptable figures, how would you deal with healthcare collapse? Decide to withhold hospital treatment from over 65s?

abduhl 6y ago
A government known for its austerity measures is going to mitigate its citizens' financial issues? I find that hard to believe. I'm not going to engage with someone over the internet about the weighing of people's quality of life years or which side of the fence I come down on there. My post was merely pointing out that extrapolating a suicide rate for 2Q 2020 to the total suicide death number was in error.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  > A government known for its austerity measures is going to mitigate its citizens' financial issues? At least it’s possible. Last I checked death was impossible to mitigate.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
crateandarrow 6y ago
I don’t mean to diminish the gravity of such numbers but don’t projections like this ignore asymptomatic cases? How many of those projected to die here have already contacted it but are immune for whatever reason and never got tested? The death rates across age ranges can only account for confirmed deaths and cases in that range, no? Without testing every single person in an age range we can’t make accurate projections because we can’t know the percentage of “immune” people, no?
- thomasz 6y ago
  Yes, they do. There is obviously some guesswork involved, but after several seroprevalence studies, these arguments can be laid to rest. There is no giant iceberg of undetected cases, we’re still in the beginning of the pandemic, and IFR is frighteningly high. Especially in older populations.
- saberdancer 6y ago
  They don't ignore asymptomatic cases. IFR is calculated using symptomatic and asymptomatic cases. It's total % of people that die if they get infected, symptomatic or not. Studies are showing Covid-19 has IFR of 0.5-1% in western world (due to age). This means if 100% of England got infected, 0.5 to 1% would die. This is not counting that if hospitals got overwhelmed, IFR would increase.
- iso1631 6y ago
  The figures I used were median figure in the range, with modern intervention techniques (theraputic drugs etc) The range (95%ile I think) for 45-65 year old was 0.24% - 0.41%, median 0.32%. The full details are on the link.

CraigJPerry 6y ago

>> that doesn't mean that their eventual decline into depression and suicide wasn't triggered by that loss It's not just loss of jobs/businesses/careers - loss of loved ones to COVID can be a cause of depression too. Allowing more COVID deaths could increase suicides.

onethought 6y ago

Why is it important to look at the age? You are implying that human life degrades in value as people age. To take your view to it's logical conclusion: We should harvest living old peoples organs to save babies.

AnHonestComment 6y ago
QALY is standard medical practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year I understand it makes people squeamish, but the medical profession triages lives and decides treatments every day. Doing something QALY negative is malpractice — and lockdowns are QALY negative because they harm the young to save the old/infirm.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  FYI your comments are showing as dead by default, time for a new account.
- onethought 6y ago
  But that is to decide on resource allocation, i.e: I have 2 people, and 1 me, which one do I help. That isn't used by governments to decide on health or economic policy. Else we'd ban old people from hospitals (and save trillions in the process!) and in general make their lives a misery (high tax, low benefits) because their "value" would be approaching 0.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    Uh, QALY is definitely used by governments to decide on health and economic policy, but not in the absurd utilitarian way you're imagining. For example, it's used to prioritize people in transplant queues. The more "use" you can get out of a new organ, the more you'll be prioritized, but it's not the only decider.
    - onethought 6y ago

jandrewrogers 6y ago

FWIW, I personally know a couple very successful restauranteurs who descended into despondency and alcoholism to the point where they are effectively non-functional and will likely never open a restaurant again. These people aren’t accounted for in the damage but they are shadows of their former contributions to society. These people aren’t dead but they are asymptotically close to it for all practical purposes. Even if things opened up tomorrow they would have nowhere to go.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]