4 ms·
It depends on how it drops by 1.2 If all you care about is the numbers, then a drop of 1.2 is a horrible terrible outcome and we should all recoil in horror, n
by sjwalter 5y ago
It depends on how it drops by 1.2
If all you care about is the numbers, then a drop of 1.2 is a horrible terrible outcome and we should all recoil in horror, no matter how it happens.
To me and almost every other human, having a bunch of 80 year olds die, losing out on say, 1-5 quality-adjusted years of life, is not great, but it is nowhere near a tragedy.
Having a bunch of young healthy people with say 50-70 quality-adjusted years of life left, is an absolute horrific nightmarish cosmic-scale terrible outcome.
But to you, it's 1.2 either way.
- hawkice 5y ago> nowhere near a tragedy It might be useful to tone down any highly idiomatic usage of English here, because this sounds very weird. edit: sort of has this vibe. me: "I was sad when my grandmother died" hn: "WAAAAYYY off there, buddy."
- bena 5y agoIf half are over 82, what does that make the other half? I'll wait for you to figure that one out. 1.2 is major, no way to slice it. Because either we've been lucky for decades with all of the slight increases or something major just happened. Now you're trying to color the discussion by projecting things onto me. I never used the words "horrific" or "nightmarish" or even "terrible". I used the words significant and astronomical. Because they apply. When we've been slowly gaining by 0.1 years/year, a drop of 1.2 years is a -1.3 change. That's a 1300% decrease compared to previous years. Those sorts of scales of difference are typically found in astronomy. Why do you have a vested interest in downplaying what happened over the past year?