4 ms·

Eh, It all depends how you look at the statistics. Consider the below: * Sweden had c14k deaths. Average age of death was in the eighty's - let's say Covid sho

by Closi 5y ago

Eh, It all depends how you look at the statistics. Consider the below: * Sweden had c14k deaths. Average age of death was in the eighty's - let's say Covid shortened life expectancy by 10 years on average (seems a conservative figure). Total life lost is c140k life-years. * If Sweden locked down like other countries for a year, this would have been 10m people * 1 year = 10 million years of lockdown. Let's say that people had a life that was 10% worse during that time because of the restrictions of lockdown, that's 1 million quality-adjusted life years lost. If you are trying to optimise for "total quality-adjusted life years" as a society across the full population rather than just 'save lives' - Sweden's approach looks absolutely valid and correct. If your measure of success is 'minimise the absolute number of lives lost to Covid, no matter what the cost' then it looks poor.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Personally I used this time to improve my relationship with my wife and improve myself. The loss this year isn't the loss of socialization or income it is the literal loss of our family members and friends who died and the loss with lesser measures could only be greater. I think attempts to quantify value of life are fraught with problems and absurdities. Consider an 80 year old whose average life expectancy based on health was just a year. Certainly you wouldn't suggest he be killed if it might save some 9000 people an hour in traffic? The problem lies not merely with the incorrect assignment of the value time during lockdown as having zero value itself clearly erroneous but with the idea that lives and time are so trivially fungible that you can come up with an acceptable number of hours stuck in your house watching netflix to folks slowly suffocated in their own fluids. There is no such algorithm that reasonable people could agree on in good faith even if we started with the best of intentions.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  On the other hand, you have to consider people who were single and dating. They had a way worse last 18 months than those in a committed, cohabitating relationship.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    The larger point is that its impossible to objectively value other people's lives and any reasoning based on doing so is faulty.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      I agree with that as precisely stated, but one can reasonably make subjective judgements (and indeed our politicians are doing so at the moment). If we could live on average 6 months longer if we permanently stopped all gatherings, closed all restaurants/bars, and wore masks all the time we were outside our house, I think most people would say “screw that; it’s not worth it!” It’s a subjective judgement rather than an objective calculation, but it’s still valid.
    - Closi 5y ago
      Unless we make a judgement-call on value how can we balance taking away peoples freedoms over extending other peoples lives? Consider the following questions: * Would you accept 70 million people staying inside for a year to extend a single persons life by 10 years? * Would you accept 500 people staying inside for a year to extend a single persons life by 10 years? * Would you accept 5,000 people staying inside for a year to extend 10 peoples life by 10 years? * Would you stay inside for an hour to save another persons life by a year? * Would you stay inside for a year to save another person life by 1 year? These are the real questions that we have to answer, and they will absolutely (and unfortunately) need people to face into the question of the value of life. My personal answer to these questions is (in sequence) No, No, No, Yes, No. A reasonable person could answer completely different - there is no absolute right answer in any of these! We can pretend that the answer to these questions is impossible - but these are the real decisions that policy makers need to make. How much is someone's freedom worth compared to the life of a stranger?
- Closi 5y ago
  > The problem lies not merely with the incorrect assignment of the value time during lockdown as having zero value itself I didn't assign zero value - I assigned it as 90% value compared to a year with no restrictions. It's nice you used the time to improve your relationship with your wife, but I'm single and wasn't able to see my friends or family for 6 months. I like that you managed to make the most of it - but my life was put on hold. > The idea that lives and time are so trivially fungible that you can come up with an acceptable number of hours stuck in your house watching Netflix to folks slowly suffocated in their own fluids. This post assumes that me being inside for a year stops someone else being suffocated - but actually it's probably more like 100-500 people being inside for a year stops 1 person being suffocated (although they will still die of another cause instead, on average a few years later but sometimes many years later). Besides, it's the idea that my freedom (and that of hundreds of others per life saved) should be traded for someone else's health is my issue. Selfish? Sure, but we all are. Everyone on this forum could donate all their earnings this year to save tens of strangers lives in less developed countries but very few do in reality. > Consider an 80 year old whose average life expectancy based on health was just a year. Certainly you wouldn't suggest he be killed if it might save some 9000 people an hour in traffic? See the trolley dilemma - this is a different ethical decision (based on positive action, i.e. doing vs allowing harm).
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    There isn't much difference between active and passive harm. The most notable thing about the trolley problem is our inate resistance to thinking rationally about that. People in their 30s and 40s are dying and losing decades of life. Kids Even. Slowing down the spread and then vaccination has saved so many millions from rolling that die. For myself and my wife for example my wife would virtually certainly be dead if she had contracted it and I wouldn't have great odds either. My lungs don't work that well now without benefit of covid Then there is the damage done by the disease how do you properly value ravaged lungs and damaged bodies that decrease quality of life for the remainder of a life and end it prematurely? Better than half of asymptomatic survivors have lung damage even! Then every case as a trillion chances at a better covid. How do you value THAT in your equation? Do you try to assign probability to various future death rates and multiply by probability of being realized? > but actually it's probably more like 100 people being inside for a year stops 1 person being suffocated. Plus 12 from being hospitalized and having substantial damage done to their bodies that decreases their lifespan by 5 years. Plus 20 more who didn't feel serious symptoms but still sustained substantial lung or cardiovascular damage and lost a year. Even playing the same game I think you are behind the 8 ball. We are all selfish. It's true but it's a vice not a justification. We ought to strive for better. The life you save may be your own.
gizmo385 5y ago
That comparison of life hours isn't valid though. There are additional effect that are wrought on a nation when it's experiencing mass death - mass grief and loss has effects. And that's not to mention the potential overwhelming of the healthcare system, resulting in many other lives being lost or severely impacted. People can't be simply reduced down to a number and happiness isn't an 'x' that we can solve for in a mathematical calculation.
- matvore 5y ago
  Imperfect comparison but still valid. All lives are eventually lost causing some grief. (If I may summarize what you've said) Saying that a large number of coincident deaths causes a collective grief that wouldn't have happened otherwise is rather subjective. I have felt nothing of the sort. I don't think it's enough of a concern to justify such an overreach of government power. Quantifying the value of life as a number is icky but necessary if you're making decisions of this scale.
- mikem170 5y ago
  > There are additional effect that are wrought on a nation when it's experiencing mass death - mass grief and loss has effects. 1 out of 695 people have dies from covid in Sweden since the start of the pandemic [0], two thirds of them over 80 years old, 96% over 60 [1]. I would not call that mass death. > People can't be simply reduced down to a number and happiness isn't an 'x' that we can solve for in a mathematical calculation. I don't have a problem doing that for myself. I have a limited amount of time left in this world and some of the things I most enjoy are impossible to do with the restrictions that have been imposed over the last 18 months. Last I checked, before vaccines, was that I had a 1 in 15,000 chance of dying from covid. I personally don't think that's reason for me to curtail living my life. The numbers look even worse for younger people and those who have had more of their lives upended by lockdowns. These are population decisions, involving millions of people, people dying all the time, suffering one way or the other. Lockdowns have costs and downsides, too. If you are not using math to look at this then what are you doing? [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-corona...

by Closi 5y ago

michaelmrose 5y ago

Personally I used this time to improve my relationship with my wife and improve myself. The loss this year isn't the loss of socialization or income it is the literal loss of our family members and friends who died and the loss with lesser measures could only be greater. I think attempts to quantify value of life are fraught with problems and absurdities. Consider an 80 year old whose average life expectancy based on health was just a year. Certainly you wouldn't suggest he be killed if it might save some 9000 people an hour in traffic? The problem lies not merely with the incorrect assignment of the value time during lockdown as having zero value itself clearly erroneous but with the idea that lives and time are so trivially fungible that you can come up with an acceptable number of hours stuck in your house watching netflix to folks slowly suffocated in their own fluids. There is no such algorithm that reasonable people could agree on in good faith even if we started with the best of intentions.

sokoloff 5y ago
On the other hand, you have to consider people who were single and dating. They had a way worse last 18 months than those in a committed, cohabitating relationship.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  The larger point is that its impossible to objectively value other people's lives and any reasoning based on doing so is faulty.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I agree with that as precisely stated, but one can reasonably make subjective judgements (and indeed our politicians are doing so at the moment). If we could live on average 6 months longer if we permanently stopped all gatherings, closed all restaurants/bars, and wore masks all the time we were outside our house, I think most people would say “screw that; it’s not worth it!” It’s a subjective judgement rather than an objective calculation, but it’s still valid.
  - Closi 5y ago
    Unless we make a judgement-call on value how can we balance taking away peoples freedoms over extending other peoples lives? Consider the following questions: * Would you accept 70 million people staying inside for a year to extend a single persons life by 10 years? * Would you accept 500 people staying inside for a year to extend a single persons life by 10 years? * Would you accept 5,000 people staying inside for a year to extend 10 peoples life by 10 years? * Would you stay inside for an hour to save another persons life by a year? * Would you stay inside for a year to save another person life by 1 year? These are the real questions that we have to answer, and they will absolutely (and unfortunately) need people to face into the question of the value of life. My personal answer to these questions is (in sequence) No, No, No, Yes, No. A reasonable person could answer completely different - there is no absolute right answer in any of these! We can pretend that the answer to these questions is impossible - but these are the real decisions that policy makers need to make. How much is someone's freedom worth compared to the life of a stranger?
Closi 5y ago
> The problem lies not merely with the incorrect assignment of the value time during lockdown as having zero value itself I didn't assign zero value - I assigned it as 90% value compared to a year with no restrictions. It's nice you used the time to improve your relationship with your wife, but I'm single and wasn't able to see my friends or family for 6 months. I like that you managed to make the most of it - but my life was put on hold. > The idea that lives and time are so trivially fungible that you can come up with an acceptable number of hours stuck in your house watching Netflix to folks slowly suffocated in their own fluids. This post assumes that me being inside for a year stops someone else being suffocated - but actually it's probably more like 100-500 people being inside for a year stops 1 person being suffocated (although they will still die of another cause instead, on average a few years later but sometimes many years later). Besides, it's the idea that my freedom (and that of hundreds of others per life saved) should be traded for someone else's health is my issue. Selfish? Sure, but we all are. Everyone on this forum could donate all their earnings this year to save tens of strangers lives in less developed countries but very few do in reality. > Consider an 80 year old whose average life expectancy based on health was just a year. Certainly you wouldn't suggest he be killed if it might save some 9000 people an hour in traffic? See the trolley dilemma - this is a different ethical decision (based on positive action, i.e. doing vs allowing harm).
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  There isn't much difference between active and passive harm. The most notable thing about the trolley problem is our inate resistance to thinking rationally about that. People in their 30s and 40s are dying and losing decades of life. Kids Even. Slowing down the spread and then vaccination has saved so many millions from rolling that die. For myself and my wife for example my wife would virtually certainly be dead if she had contracted it and I wouldn't have great odds either. My lungs don't work that well now without benefit of covid Then there is the damage done by the disease how do you properly value ravaged lungs and damaged bodies that decrease quality of life for the remainder of a life and end it prematurely? Better than half of asymptomatic survivors have lung damage even! Then every case as a trillion chances at a better covid. How do you value THAT in your equation? Do you try to assign probability to various future death rates and multiply by probability of being realized? > but actually it's probably more like 100 people being inside for a year stops 1 person being suffocated. Plus 12 from being hospitalized and having substantial damage done to their bodies that decreases their lifespan by 5 years. Plus 20 more who didn't feel serious symptoms but still sustained substantial lung or cardiovascular damage and lost a year. Even playing the same game I think you are behind the 8 ball. We are all selfish. It's true but it's a vice not a justification. We ought to strive for better. The life you save may be your own.

gizmo385 5y ago

That comparison of life hours isn't valid though. There are additional effect that are wrought on a nation when it's experiencing mass death - mass grief and loss has effects. And that's not to mention the potential overwhelming of the healthcare system, resulting in many other lives being lost or severely impacted. People can't be simply reduced down to a number and happiness isn't an 'x' that we can solve for in a mathematical calculation.

matvore 5y ago
Imperfect comparison but still valid. All lives are eventually lost causing some grief. (If I may summarize what you've said) Saying that a large number of coincident deaths causes a collective grief that wouldn't have happened otherwise is rather subjective. I have felt nothing of the sort. I don't think it's enough of a concern to justify such an overreach of government power. Quantifying the value of life as a number is icky but necessary if you're making decisions of this scale.
mikem170 5y ago
> There are additional effect that are wrought on a nation when it's experiencing mass death - mass grief and loss has effects. 1 out of 695 people have dies from covid in Sweden since the start of the pandemic [0], two thirds of them over 80 years old, 96% over 60 [1]. I would not call that mass death. > People can't be simply reduced down to a number and happiness isn't an 'x' that we can solve for in a mathematical calculation. I don't have a problem doing that for myself. I have a limited amount of time left in this world and some of the things I most enjoy are impossible to do with the restrictions that have been imposed over the last 18 months. Last I checked, before vaccines, was that I had a 1 in 15,000 chance of dying from covid. I personally don't think that's reason for me to curtail living my life. The numbers look even worse for younger people and those who have had more of their lives upended by lockdowns. These are population decisions, involving millions of people, people dying all the time, suffering one way or the other. Lockdowns have costs and downsides, too. If you are not using math to look at this then what are you doing? [0] https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-coronavirus-deaths-in-sweden-by-age-groups/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107913/number-of-corona...