7 ms·

Well then why do some people think it is idiotic?

by polote 6y ago

shawabawa3 6y ago
Because it would result in hundreds of thousands dying, complete overcapacity of hospitals increasing the death rate of covid and all other injuries and illnesses, and cause even more damage to the economy as a result than lockdown
patrec 6y ago
Speaking only for myself, I think your opinion is idiotic based on some simple back of the envelope math I did many months ago (when the UK announced its herd immunity plan), relating to hospital capacity, likely peak case numbers, proportion of cases that would need hospital treatment or die and some simple minded guesses about knock-on effects for the rest of the health system. I have not bothered to redo these calculations in the light of current evidence (some things have gotten better, others have gotten worse), but I remain sceptical that anyone numerate who spent one or two hours trying to work out the likely results of your advocated policy would arrive at similar conclusion as to the best course of action as you did. So let me ask: on what basis did you arrive at your opinion? [Edit: HN comment from 10 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22578742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22578742]
- polote 6y ago
  if we let the virus lives its life, maximum 2% of pop will die, 90 more % will live normally and a few percent will have covid related health issues. so we sacrifice a few percent of population for the future of the others
  - frereubu 6y ago
    > so we sacrifice a few percent of population for the future of the others No, you sacrifice an uncertain percentage of the population (but probably larger than you suggest because healthcare systems would be quickly overwhelmed by a massive spike in cases) to both death and long-term sickness and disability, but for what? Lockdown causes people to lose their jobs, children to miss school, and others to suffer problems with mental health (although to use your phrasing, this would just be "a few percent" of the population) but it saves people's lives and health. I'm also really disappointed that people don't get the idea that people dying and having long-term health issues doesn't screw the economy too.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago
    This is obviously not true, since allowing the virus to spread freely massively increases the rate of fatalities and long-term illness once healthcare becomes overwhelmed.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - ldrndll 6y ago
    Care to cite any stats supporting your assertion that a maximum of 2% of the population would die? During periods where the healthcare system has been overloaded the mortality rates have been many multiples of that during times when healthcare is provided at an appropriate level. What’s more, do you have any reasonable figures to suggest why letting a percentage or more of the population die unnecessarily, consigning even larger numbers to long-term health problems and so forth is somehow a good choice?
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      > What’s more, do you have any reasonable figures to suggest why letting a percentage or more of the population die unnecessarily, consigning even larger numbers to long-term health problems and so forth is somehow a good choice? If I squint my eyes a bit. Reduce the burden on the pension system?
      - jlokier 6y ago
        If I squint my eyes, I don't think it would even reduce the burden on the state pension system when you take into account the benefit system it is part of. Long-term disabled or ill people who are unable to work will effectively take early retirement (in some cases they can draw on their actual pension early too), and depend on state support from then on whether it's called pension or something else. The duration of payouts will be longer than for ordinary retirement age. It's not just miserable for those survivors, it's expensive for the state. Long-term health problems are also likely to cost more in healthcare later.
        Aeolun 6y ago
        True, but do more people end up in long term care than dead? I’d guess so, based on what I read so far, but not sure.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      > During periods where the healthcare system has been overloaded the mortality rates have been many multiples of that during times when healthcare is provided at an appropriate level. If you ask people to cite statistics for their claims, you should also do so for your claims such as this one.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    ... or you can lock down, eradicate it and go back to normal (except for international travel). It passed that point in many places now unfortunately. I’m in Auckland, NZ and it’s a normal summer. We have also learned that NZs terrible road toll is unrelated to tourists, who we previously blamed. Have you considered that of 100 friends, family and acquaintances you’d see two die and 10 would have a painful and difficult future?
    - Taurenking 6y ago
      Let's see how things are once winter rolls over
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    And what happens when you get more mutant strains that do God knows what. You want to bet it’ll be 2%? What about 1895 and 1918?
  - smcl 6y ago
    So by that calculation 1.32 million people (2% of 66 million) would die and we're supposed to NOT react strongly to people who hold that opinion?
    - matz1 6y ago
      As supposed of advocating lockdown ? How many million of people would suffer from lockdown?
      - smcl 6y ago
        Really not sure how to perform that comparison. How do we equate one death vs one "suffer", and how do we count the "suffers" of people who take ill of covid in the free-for-all scenario? I think the ball is in your court on this one but, frankly, good luck
        matz1 6y ago
        So not sure then do lockdown anyway?
        smcl 6y ago
        Well we actually have a very good idea of how many people would die of Covid if the entire population of the UK got Covid. We don't know how many people have ... whatever you are proposing we compare that against. So faced with the options of "prevent the deaths of over a million people" and "matz1 doesn't like lockdown but doesn't want to talk about or quantify it" I think the choice is pretty clear. Unless you want to elaborate further?
        matz1 6y ago
        whats the evidence that lockdown can 'prevent the deaths of over a million people' ? Keep in mind Lockdown can cause death as well.
        6y ago
  - patrec 6y ago
    There are already multiple working vaccines. Why on earth would you even contemplate killing or permanently damaging over a million people, just in the UK alone? Do you really think that 90% of the remaining population will be cool with that and continue to lead a normal life amidst all of this? Even a good fraction of other people in the bottom decile for empathy might waver in their commitment to lead a normal and maximally economically productive life if they are (understandably) worried about the risks this brings to their own well-being.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    Congratulations on totally missing the point. [ EDIT: the number I originally used for "requiring hospitalization" were way off. I've edited to reflect data from September provided by the CDC. The 20% -> ICU figure comes from the NYC experience in May, but seems roughly correct from other global hotspots ] Roughly 0.4% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Of those, 20% will require ICU treatment. In the end, the entire human race will be exposed to SARS-COV-2. If that happens all on the same day, or week, or month or probably even year, no health care system in the world can possibly deal with the case load. Some of those who might have survived COVID19 with hospital care will die. But (and this is the important part) those with other medical conditions that timely and effective health care could have treated will also die. Trauma (e.g. car or tool accidents). Infectious disease. Cancer. Chronic health conditions. And in killing all these people, you've made nothing better for those who survive, because if you think the economy has gone to hell under current attempts to deal with it, you clearly cannot imagine it as the entire health care system melts down. COVID19 is not a personal health crisis. Most people will not die of it (even though hundreds of thousands will, which is not going to be much comfort to their families, friends, colleagues and neighbors. It is a public health crisis that threatens to overwhelm our health care systems and thus have far worse effects than just the disease itself.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      > Roughly 20% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Where do you get this from? I do think, of those requiring hospitalization, there is somewhere around a <20% mortality rate (it seems to vary by region).
      - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
        The number was very, very, very wrong. I've corrected it. My point remains intact, I think.
    - usaphp 6y ago
      > Roughly 20% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Of those, 20% will require ICU treatment. Where do you get these numbers from? California has about 50k new cases per day, with probably another 50k cases that were not tested. According to your stats 20k people will require hospitalization and 5k will require an ICU bed per day.
  - cawlin 6y ago
    Just casually let ~150 million people die. Cool.
  - jlokier 6y ago
    I suppose you are free to decide that 1.32 million people in the UK should die an avoidable death, so that others have an easier life for a few months. Yes it's a value judgement. But it's a particularly awful value to hold: - Advocating for the death of a million people when it's avoidable is abhorrent - It would be more than that, due to the collapse of health services, causing people who would currently survive to die instead - It would be more again due to the increased likelihood of viral mutations when left to run rampant - Also due to the collapse of health services, most deaths would be outside hospitals, i.e. at home, slowly suffocating to death - Some would survive with brain damage due to lack of oxygen at home - While dying, people at home would know if they could get a hospital place they'd probably survive, and avoid brain damage, but they can't get one - It wouldn't even boost the economy, because a million deaths is actually quite a drag on the economy, especially when most of them are dying at home with their families staying at home to look after them due to collapse of the health services - It would be horrendously traumatic; a lot of people would struggle to work afterwards after watching their family members, friends, neighbours and people they know die at home slowly from an avoidable cause - It would cause tremendous social division, as many of the traumatised people having watched their family members (& friends, etc) die, avoidably, would know it was caused by the actions of their own neighbours & local community, along with national decision-making to "sacrifice" those million - That's just deaths; survivors with long Covid would also be a large drag on the economy, struggling or unable to work, requiring support, and potentially expensive for the healthcare services and their familiies in later life if it's long-term organ damage as some fear. The numbers with long Covid would exceed the current number of official unemployed - Advocating for serious life-long disability for another several million people when it's avoidable is abhorrent too
- dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
  > So let me ask: on what basis did you arrive at your opinion? I will answer this, although more than likely my comment will get killed soon: I believe that the high-risk people (elderly, immuno-compromised, people with diseases that put them at risk) should go into voluntary quarantine if they wish, together with a government package to support them. Anyone who wishes to undergo lockdown can also do so, although with no package beyond what they would normally get. The rest can do as they please. This will not stop the ICU beds from filling up obviously, which is why they should be triaged to high-risk patients, frontline staff, and people who underwent quarantine and lockdown. When capacity allows, other people too. The people who chose not to lockdown deal with it, or die. This is probably unimplementable in the real world. That said, it would mean the lowest amount of economic stress (which kills silently) for the following years. On some level, it also appeals to the human need for cause: those people that died of corona and didn't get treatment "did it to themselves". The high-risk people do not get sacrificed.
  - patrec 6y ago
    > That said, it would mean the lowest amount of economic stress (which kills silently) for the following years What makes you think so? Did you look at the life-expectancy impact of severe economic downturns and compare them to likely excess fatality figures due to your proposed policy? I suspect not, because last I looked for it I didn't seem to find much evidence for silently killing economic stress. > This will not stop the ICU beds from filling up obviously, That's a bit of a problem, because those ICU beds are also known to be useful for people suffering from urgent non-covid related problems. Even if you managed to turn away all the non-lockdowners (how would you even check? Police patrols tattooing people spotted on the street during voluntary lockdown?), you might still find that just the "legitimate" cases are enough to really mess up urgent health care for a lot of other people.
    - dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
      > What makes you think so? Did you look at the life-expectancy impact of severe economic downturns and compare them to likely excess fatality figures due to your proposed policy? I suspect not, because last I looked it didn't seem to find much evidence for silently killing economic stress. Not the point I was making. I do not know which option will lead to less death, neither do you, neither do really the scientists (although they have a better idea). However, a full lockdown will lead to more economic loss at least in the short term than a voluntary lockdown. Long-term, as I said, I don't think any of us can say. > you might still find that just the "legitimate" cases are enough to really mess up urgent health care for a lot of other people. Like is currently happening? Yes, my solution wouldn't stop all bad effects. There will be much death regardless, the hope is that the people who are left to die as they chose no protection will "help out" with the number of ICU beds needed in general. > how would you even check ? You are in lockdown until you fill in some sort of form with the government, waiving your rights to hospital care in the case of catching Corona. This list is used to make decisions. This part at least is implementable.
- liquorice 6y ago
  I think the conclusion of a death toll estimation exercise may shift if you adjust for expected remaining lifetime. In Scotland, the mean COVID death age was higher than the average lifetime expectancy[1], which indicates that on average those people would probably live <10 years had they not contracted the disease. The expected remaining lifetime of the average individual in Scotland (if it remains unchanged) is ~37 years, which would reduce the lifetime adjusted death toll by at least 3.7. There have been a significant amount of excess deaths that are not attributable to COVID [2]. I suspect that such deaths have a lower average age (e.g. due to suicides), than COVID deaths, further reducing the average life years saved due to the lockdowns. I'm not proposing that we should optimise for life years saved, but I do think that the death of a 86 year old is less tragic than that of a 38 year old, and that we perhaps shouldn't evaluate lockdown vs no lockdown purely based on the percentage of the population which died. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-54433305 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-54433305 [2] https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/are-a-third-of-the-excess-deaths-this-year-not-linked-to-covid-19-yes-are-they-directly-linked-to-the-lockdown-it-s-complicated/?article_id=740863&fc=politics_channel https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/are-a-third-of-the-excess...
  - patrec 6y ago
    > I'm not proposing that we should optimise for life years saved, but I do think that the death of a 86 year old is less tragic than that of a 38 year old, and that we perhaps shouldn't evaluate lockdown vs no lockdown purely based on the percentage of the population which died. I of course agree with that. Just stating lives lost in isolation is misleading. It simply much easier to use for back-of-envelope math, and generally back of the envelope math indicating a course of action would lead to millions of excess deaths is enough to conclude that probably it won't be a great idea. > which indicates that on average those people would probably live <10 years This is plausible, but it may not be much less than 10 years either. The life expectancy of someone who reaches average UK life expectancy is close to another 10 years. And we'd probably both prefer neither ourselves nor any elderly relatives or friends to suffocate 10 years before their or our time. > There have been a significant amount of excess deaths that are not attributable to COVID [2]. So this sounds initially plausible (lockdown stress/economic hardship leading to an increase in suicides) but I believe it's bullshit and that these deaths are in fact due to covid. Since we were talking about the UK, let's go back to look at that: the baseline figure of suicides is pretty low (~6k in the UK for 2019, which is 1e-4 per individual per year). The number of excess deaths in 2020 is at least 12 times higher than that. So the suicide rate would have had to at least double to account for a significant part of that. And nationwide suicide rates are quite stable, year-on-year, including, crucially, during times of severe economic hardship.

Well then why do some people think it is idiotic?

by polote 6y ago

Well then why do some people think it is idiotic?

Because it would result in hundreds of thousands dying, complete overcapacity of hospitals increasing the death rate of covid and all other injuries and illnesses, and cause even more damage to the economy as a result than lockdown

patrec 6y ago

Speaking only for myself, I think your opinion is idiotic based on some simple back of the envelope math I did many months ago (when the UK announced its herd immunity plan), relating to hospital capacity, likely peak case numbers, proportion of cases that would need hospital treatment or die and some simple minded guesses about knock-on effects for the rest of the health system. I have not bothered to redo these calculations in the light of current evidence (some things have gotten better, others have gotten worse), but I remain sceptical that anyone numerate who spent one or two hours trying to work out the likely results of your advocated policy would arrive at similar conclusion as to the best course of action as you did. So let me ask: on what basis did you arrive at your opinion? [Edit: HN comment from 10 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22578742 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22578742]

polote 6y ago
if we let the virus lives its life, maximum 2% of pop will die, 90 more % will live normally and a few percent will have covid related health issues. so we sacrifice a few percent of population for the future of the others
- frereubu 6y ago
  > so we sacrifice a few percent of population for the future of the others No, you sacrifice an uncertain percentage of the population (but probably larger than you suggest because healthcare systems would be quickly overwhelmed by a massive spike in cases) to both death and long-term sickness and disability, but for what? Lockdown causes people to lose their jobs, children to miss school, and others to suffer problems with mental health (although to use your phrasing, this would just be "a few percent" of the population) but it saves people's lives and health. I'm also really disappointed that people don't get the idea that people dying and having long-term health issues doesn't screw the economy too.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  This is obviously not true, since allowing the virus to spread freely massively increases the rate of fatalities and long-term illness once healthcare becomes overwhelmed.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- ldrndll 6y ago
  Care to cite any stats supporting your assertion that a maximum of 2% of the population would die? During periods where the healthcare system has been overloaded the mortality rates have been many multiples of that during times when healthcare is provided at an appropriate level. What’s more, do you have any reasonable figures to suggest why letting a percentage or more of the population die unnecessarily, consigning even larger numbers to long-term health problems and so forth is somehow a good choice?
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    > What’s more, do you have any reasonable figures to suggest why letting a percentage or more of the population die unnecessarily, consigning even larger numbers to long-term health problems and so forth is somehow a good choice? If I squint my eyes a bit. Reduce the burden on the pension system?
    - jlokier 6y ago
      If I squint my eyes, I don't think it would even reduce the burden on the state pension system when you take into account the benefit system it is part of. Long-term disabled or ill people who are unable to work will effectively take early retirement (in some cases they can draw on their actual pension early too), and depend on state support from then on whether it's called pension or something else. The duration of payouts will be longer than for ordinary retirement age. It's not just miserable for those survivors, it's expensive for the state. Long-term health problems are also likely to cost more in healthcare later.
      - Aeolun 6y ago
        True, but do more people end up in long term care than dead? I’d guess so, based on what I read so far, but not sure.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    > During periods where the healthcare system has been overloaded the mortality rates have been many multiples of that during times when healthcare is provided at an appropriate level. If you ask people to cite statistics for their claims, you should also do so for your claims such as this one.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  ... or you can lock down, eradicate it and go back to normal (except for international travel). It passed that point in many places now unfortunately. I’m in Auckland, NZ and it’s a normal summer. We have also learned that NZs terrible road toll is unrelated to tourists, who we previously blamed. Have you considered that of 100 friends, family and acquaintances you’d see two die and 10 would have a painful and difficult future?
  - Taurenking 6y ago
    Let's see how things are once winter rolls over
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  And what happens when you get more mutant strains that do God knows what. You want to bet it’ll be 2%? What about 1895 and 1918?
- smcl 6y ago
  So by that calculation 1.32 million people (2% of 66 million) would die and we're supposed to NOT react strongly to people who hold that opinion?
  - matz1 6y ago
    As supposed of advocating lockdown ? How many million of people would suffer from lockdown?
    - smcl 6y ago
      Really not sure how to perform that comparison. How do we equate one death vs one "suffer", and how do we count the "suffers" of people who take ill of covid in the free-for-all scenario? I think the ball is in your court on this one but, frankly, good luck
      - matz1 6y ago
        So not sure then do lockdown anyway?
        smcl 6y ago
        Well we actually have a very good idea of how many people would die of Covid if the entire population of the UK got Covid. We don't know how many people have ... whatever you are proposing we compare that against. So faced with the options of "prevent the deaths of over a million people" and "matz1 doesn't like lockdown but doesn't want to talk about or quantify it" I think the choice is pretty clear. Unless you want to elaborate further?
        matz1 6y ago
        whats the evidence that lockdown can 'prevent the deaths of over a million people' ? Keep in mind Lockdown can cause death as well.
        6y ago
- patrec 6y ago
  There are already multiple working vaccines. Why on earth would you even contemplate killing or permanently damaging over a million people, just in the UK alone? Do you really think that 90% of the remaining population will be cool with that and continue to lead a normal life amidst all of this? Even a good fraction of other people in the bottom decile for empathy might waver in their commitment to lead a normal and maximally economically productive life if they are (understandably) worried about the risks this brings to their own well-being.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  Congratulations on totally missing the point. [ EDIT: the number I originally used for "requiring hospitalization" were way off. I've edited to reflect data from September provided by the CDC. The 20% -> ICU figure comes from the NYC experience in May, but seems roughly correct from other global hotspots ] Roughly 0.4% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Of those, 20% will require ICU treatment. In the end, the entire human race will be exposed to SARS-COV-2. If that happens all on the same day, or week, or month or probably even year, no health care system in the world can possibly deal with the case load. Some of those who might have survived COVID19 with hospital care will die. But (and this is the important part) those with other medical conditions that timely and effective health care could have treated will also die. Trauma (e.g. car or tool accidents). Infectious disease. Cancer. Chronic health conditions. And in killing all these people, you've made nothing better for those who survive, because if you think the economy has gone to hell under current attempts to deal with it, you clearly cannot imagine it as the entire health care system melts down. COVID19 is not a personal health crisis. Most people will not die of it (even though hundreds of thousands will, which is not going to be much comfort to their families, friends, colleagues and neighbors. It is a public health crisis that threatens to overwhelm our health care systems and thus have far worse effects than just the disease itself.
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    > Roughly 20% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Where do you get this from? I do think, of those requiring hospitalization, there is somewhere around a <20% mortality rate (it seems to vary by region).
    - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      The number was very, very, very wrong. I've corrected it. My point remains intact, I think.
  - usaphp 6y ago
    > Roughly 20% of those who catch COVID19 will require hospitalization. Of those, 20% will require ICU treatment. Where do you get these numbers from? California has about 50k new cases per day, with probably another 50k cases that were not tested. According to your stats 20k people will require hospitalization and 5k will require an ICU bed per day.
- cawlin 6y ago
  Just casually let ~150 million people die. Cool.
- jlokier 6y ago
  I suppose you are free to decide that 1.32 million people in the UK should die an avoidable death, so that others have an easier life for a few months. Yes it's a value judgement. But it's a particularly awful value to hold: - Advocating for the death of a million people when it's avoidable is abhorrent - It would be more than that, due to the collapse of health services, causing people who would currently survive to die instead - It would be more again due to the increased likelihood of viral mutations when left to run rampant - Also due to the collapse of health services, most deaths would be outside hospitals, i.e. at home, slowly suffocating to death - Some would survive with brain damage due to lack of oxygen at home - While dying, people at home would know if they could get a hospital place they'd probably survive, and avoid brain damage, but they can't get one - It wouldn't even boost the economy, because a million deaths is actually quite a drag on the economy, especially when most of them are dying at home with their families staying at home to look after them due to collapse of the health services - It would be horrendously traumatic; a lot of people would struggle to work afterwards after watching their family members, friends, neighbours and people they know die at home slowly from an avoidable cause - It would cause tremendous social division, as many of the traumatised people having watched their family members (& friends, etc) die, avoidably, would know it was caused by the actions of their own neighbours & local community, along with national decision-making to "sacrifice" those million - That's just deaths; survivors with long Covid would also be a large drag on the economy, struggling or unable to work, requiring support, and potentially expensive for the healthcare services and their familiies in later life if it's long-term organ damage as some fear. The numbers with long Covid would exceed the current number of official unemployed - Advocating for serious life-long disability for another several million people when it's avoidable is abhorrent too
dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
> So let me ask: on what basis did you arrive at your opinion? I will answer this, although more than likely my comment will get killed soon: I believe that the high-risk people (elderly, immuno-compromised, people with diseases that put them at risk) should go into voluntary quarantine if they wish, together with a government package to support them. Anyone who wishes to undergo lockdown can also do so, although with no package beyond what they would normally get. The rest can do as they please. This will not stop the ICU beds from filling up obviously, which is why they should be triaged to high-risk patients, frontline staff, and people who underwent quarantine and lockdown. When capacity allows, other people too. The people who chose not to lockdown deal with it, or die. This is probably unimplementable in the real world. That said, it would mean the lowest amount of economic stress (which kills silently) for the following years. On some level, it also appeals to the human need for cause: those people that died of corona and didn't get treatment "did it to themselves". The high-risk people do not get sacrificed.
- patrec 6y ago
  > That said, it would mean the lowest amount of economic stress (which kills silently) for the following years What makes you think so? Did you look at the life-expectancy impact of severe economic downturns and compare them to likely excess fatality figures due to your proposed policy? I suspect not, because last I looked for it I didn't seem to find much evidence for silently killing economic stress. > This will not stop the ICU beds from filling up obviously, That's a bit of a problem, because those ICU beds are also known to be useful for people suffering from urgent non-covid related problems. Even if you managed to turn away all the non-lockdowners (how would you even check? Police patrols tattooing people spotted on the street during voluntary lockdown?), you might still find that just the "legitimate" cases are enough to really mess up urgent health care for a lot of other people.
  - dj_mc_merlin 6y ago
    > What makes you think so? Did you look at the life-expectancy impact of severe economic downturns and compare them to likely excess fatality figures due to your proposed policy? I suspect not, because last I looked it didn't seem to find much evidence for silently killing economic stress. Not the point I was making. I do not know which option will lead to less death, neither do you, neither do really the scientists (although they have a better idea). However, a full lockdown will lead to more economic loss at least in the short term than a voluntary lockdown. Long-term, as I said, I don't think any of us can say. > you might still find that just the "legitimate" cases are enough to really mess up urgent health care for a lot of other people. Like is currently happening? Yes, my solution wouldn't stop all bad effects. There will be much death regardless, the hope is that the people who are left to die as they chose no protection will "help out" with the number of ICU beds needed in general. > how would you even check ? You are in lockdown until you fill in some sort of form with the government, waiving your rights to hospital care in the case of catching Corona. This list is used to make decisions. This part at least is implementable.
liquorice 6y ago
I think the conclusion of a death toll estimation exercise may shift if you adjust for expected remaining lifetime. In Scotland, the mean COVID death age was higher than the average lifetime expectancy[1], which indicates that on average those people would probably live <10 years had they not contracted the disease. The expected remaining lifetime of the average individual in Scotland (if it remains unchanged) is ~37 years, which would reduce the lifetime adjusted death toll by at least 3.7. There have been a significant amount of excess deaths that are not attributable to COVID [2]. I suspect that such deaths have a lower average age (e.g. due to suicides), than COVID deaths, further reducing the average life years saved due to the lockdowns. I'm not proposing that we should optimise for life years saved, but I do think that the death of a 86 year old is less tragic than that of a 38 year old, and that we perhaps shouldn't evaluate lockdown vs no lockdown purely based on the percentage of the population which died. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-54433305 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-54433305 [2] https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/are-a-third-of-the-excess-deaths-this-year-not-linked-to-covid-19-yes-are-they-directly-linked-to-the-lockdown-it-s-complicated/?article_id=740863&fc=politics_channel https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/are-a-third-of-the-excess...
- patrec 6y ago
  > I'm not proposing that we should optimise for life years saved, but I do think that the death of a 86 year old is less tragic than that of a 38 year old, and that we perhaps shouldn't evaluate lockdown vs no lockdown purely based on the percentage of the population which died. I of course agree with that. Just stating lives lost in isolation is misleading. It simply much easier to use for back-of-envelope math, and generally back of the envelope math indicating a course of action would lead to millions of excess deaths is enough to conclude that probably it won't be a great idea. > which indicates that on average those people would probably live <10 years This is plausible, but it may not be much less than 10 years either. The life expectancy of someone who reaches average UK life expectancy is close to another 10 years. And we'd probably both prefer neither ourselves nor any elderly relatives or friends to suffocate 10 years before their or our time. > There have been a significant amount of excess deaths that are not attributable to COVID [2]. So this sounds initially plausible (lockdown stress/economic hardship leading to an increase in suicides) but I believe it's bullshit and that these deaths are in fact due to covid. Since we were talking about the UK, let's go back to look at that: the baseline figure of suicides is pretty low (~6k in the UK for 2019, which is 1e-4 per individual per year). The number of excess deaths in 2020 is at least 12 times higher than that. So the suicide rate would have had to at least double to account for a significant part of that. And nationwide suicide rates are quite stable, year-on-year, including, crucially, during times of severe economic hardship.