4 ms·
Generously assuming people live to 90, saving a 30yo who would have died of covid saves 60 life-years, while saving a 70yo saves 20 life-years, i.e. 3x more. B
by henrikschroder 6y ago
Generously assuming people live to 90, saving a 30yo who would have died of covid saves 60 life-years, while saving a 70yo saves 20 life-years, i.e. 3x more.
But the risk of dying is around 50x higher[1] for a 70yo compared to a 30y, which means you have to vaccinate ~15x as many 30yos as 70yos to save the same amount of life-years.
So vaccinating the elderly first both saves lives and more life-years.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Generously assuming people live to 90, saving a 30yo who would have died of covid saves 60 life-years, while saving a 70yo saves 20 life-years, i.e. 3x more. This makes the fallacious assumption that if life expectance at age X is n years, life expectancy at age X+k is n-k years. This is very much not true. See, e.g., https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html Using actual life expectancy by age makes the number of life years saved at age 70 much closer to that at age 30.
- s1artibartfast 6y agoOverall good point. Much closer but still significantly different. The life expectancy is 14 years vs 48
- henrikschroder 6y ago> The life expectancy is 14 years vs 48 ...which is still a factor of ~3x, which means my napkin math wasn't too shabby, which means this tangent was completely irrelevant, because my main point is unchanged.
- fastball 6y agoBut you're giving equal weight to a year lived in the prime of someone's life vs. a year lived in a care home, which might not be a reasonable way to calculate it.
- s1artibartfast 6y agofair enough. "closer" but still significantly different is a support for your position.