4 ms·

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 sh

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
      Definitely used by government, and as proof you use a medical example... How about a government example? because it definitely isn’t in any modern public policy course taught around the world. So I’m very intrigued by your assertion.
      - henrikschroder 6y ago
        In most civilized countries, the medical system is part of the government.
        onethought 6y ago
        I’ll be more specific: it is used in medical context not in the design of public policy. Which was my original point.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  > lockdowns are QALY negative because they harm the young to save the old/infirm. You are going to have to show your work on that one. What numbers are you using?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- irjustin 6y ago
  > lockdowns are QALY negative because they harm the young to save the old/infirm. You seem to be framing this that the opposite is QALY positive and we should not lockdown. Harm the old/infirm to "not harm" the young. As other comment state, this is a "pick who suffers" exercise. Sadly, we can't save everyone. We can only do our best.
  - AnHonestComment 6y ago
    > We can only do our best. Maximizing QALY is the standard medical tool to decide what “do our best” means. If something is QALY negative, it means we were better off doing nothing — “do nothing” is the zero line for QALY analysis. The classic example is stopping chemo for terminal cancer patients or deciding which of two patients receives an organ. “Not lockdown; do nothing” is the zero line for evaluating responses to the pandemic — so yes, if our current plan is QALY negative, we should have done nothing. The current plan has an expected net loss of quality years of life.
travisjungroth 6y ago
It’s at least a pretty common take. I think it’s the idea that we all get so many years. A 25-year-old and an 85-year-old both getting terminal cancers tends to be looked at very differently. Maybe by them, too. Or look at it in a probabilistic sense. I think the actuarial table puts an 85-year-old at having about 5 years left on average. For a 25-year-old it’s more like 55. So a loss of one causes a loss of much more human life.
- onethought 6y ago
  I like your second point thinking of "human life years". It's an interesting perspective. As I commented in a sibling. Drs need these kind of tools to know who to treat first. But governments don't (and shouldn't). There is a moral point here about the meaning and value of human life that can't be ignored. As a government you can (and sometimes do) reduce lives to economic value (young will pay more tax over their life time), but other times you need to assess life on a more humanistic level. If we all know we hit the age of 60 and society stops giving a fuck, then I'm going to do very different things, converging on 100% selfishness as I approach 60, as that is the logical thing to do... but a society would fall apart if we did that.
Fricken 6y ago
My life definitely degrades in value as I age. The years seem to go by faster and faster and the frequency of novel and profound experiences steadily drops.

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
    Definitely used by government, and as proof you use a medical example... How about a government example? because it definitely isn’t in any modern public policy course taught around the world. So I’m very intrigued by your assertion.
    - henrikschroder 6y ago
      In most civilized countries, the medical system is part of the government.
      - onethought 6y ago
        I’ll be more specific: it is used in medical context not in the design of public policy. Which was my original point.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
> lockdowns are QALY negative because they harm the young to save the old/infirm. You are going to have to show your work on that one. What numbers are you using?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
irjustin 6y ago
> lockdowns are QALY negative because they harm the young to save the old/infirm. You seem to be framing this that the opposite is QALY positive and we should not lockdown. Harm the old/infirm to "not harm" the young. As other comment state, this is a "pick who suffers" exercise. Sadly, we can't save everyone. We can only do our best.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  > We can only do our best. Maximizing QALY is the standard medical tool to decide what “do our best” means. If something is QALY negative, it means we were better off doing nothing — “do nothing” is the zero line for QALY analysis. The classic example is stopping chemo for terminal cancer patients or deciding which of two patients receives an organ. “Not lockdown; do nothing” is the zero line for evaluating responses to the pandemic — so yes, if our current plan is QALY negative, we should have done nothing. The current plan has an expected net loss of quality years of life.

travisjungroth 6y ago

It’s at least a pretty common take. I think it’s the idea that we all get so many years. A 25-year-old and an 85-year-old both getting terminal cancers tends to be looked at very differently. Maybe by them, too. Or look at it in a probabilistic sense. I think the actuarial table puts an 85-year-old at having about 5 years left on average. For a 25-year-old it’s more like 55. So a loss of one causes a loss of much more human life.

onethought 6y ago
I like your second point thinking of "human life years". It's an interesting perspective. As I commented in a sibling. Drs need these kind of tools to know who to treat first. But governments don't (and shouldn't). There is a moral point here about the meaning and value of human life that can't be ignored. As a government you can (and sometimes do) reduce lives to economic value (young will pay more tax over their life time), but other times you need to assess life on a more humanistic level. If we all know we hit the age of 60 and society stops giving a fuck, then I'm going to do very different things, converging on 100% selfishness as I approach 60, as that is the logical thing to do... but a society would fall apart if we did that.

Fricken 6y ago

My life definitely degrades in value as I age. The years seem to go by faster and faster and the frequency of novel and profound experiences steadily drops.