4 ms·

4 Newborns Die After Being Denied Heart Surgery Due to Covid Travel Restrictions

13 points by hncurious 5y ago

quantified 5y ago
Unfortunately, we can’t measure how many people have survived due to lowered/slowed spread of COVID. Maybe less than 4, maybe more. We could argue that the few people who burn to death in car accidents prove that seat belts are a bad idea, because we can’t see the actual deaths prevented by belts would have happened without them. You might think you were saved, but you’ll never really know. The toxic waste produced by batteries taken from smoke detectors and burnt in incinerators or escaped/escaping in the future may take more lives than the smoke detectors ever saved. So, interesting to note, and truly sad. Worse than the alternative? Truly can’t say.
- quantified 5y ago
  For example, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ray-demonia-alabama-death-cardiac-event-icu-full/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ray-demonia-alabama-death-cardi... Here’s an adult who can’t live because of all the covid patients.
- literallyaduck 5y ago
  This is the Trolly Car Problem. Is it ethical to say I'm making a choice to kill some to save more?
  - quantified 5y ago
    Sort of, indeed. I’d say this is a fuzzy evil (psycho kitten?) trolley car problem where you don’t know anything precise or accurate about either side. And, well, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is a good starting point until you can make actual judgement calls about the individuals. If one of the infants was the Antichrist, good call. If one of them was the only one smart enough to conceive the equations that unlock virtually free energy or the social engineering required to avert a national disaster, oops.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Imagine there's two different trolleys. The first one will kill 50 people if you don't pull the lever, or 10 people if you do. The second one will kill 1 person if you don't pull the lever, or 5 people if you do. There's valid debate both ways as to whether you should pull the first lever, but you obviously definitely should not pull the second lever. But in the case of COVID restrictions, society has decided that for reasons I don't understand, pulling just one lever is out of the question, and they can't pull either unless they pull both. (In case the analogy isn't clear, the first lever is COVID restrictions on high-risk people and anyone who lives with or takes care of them, and the second lever is COVID restrictions on everyone else.)
- leokennis 5y ago
  To be honest, I can truly say. COVID deaths mainly occur in old(er) people and people with existing health issues (of course those groups overlap a lot). So the lockdowns primarily benefit those groups. Unfortunately, if those groups do not die of COVID, they will die of old age and/or their other health issues sooner than other groups anyway. So, the benefit of any medical act should be measured in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year. The same surgery might be worth the effort and recovery when performed on an infant who will live for another 80 years; you would not perform it on someone aged 99 so they can live for 1 more year. In short and very bluntly stated, they let 4 babies die (let's say conservatively about 250 QUALY's) to have some old people live 1 or 2 years longer. Which is a disgrace.

13 points by hncurious 5y ago

Unfortunately, we can’t measure how many people have survived due to lowered/slowed spread of COVID. Maybe less than 4, maybe more. We could argue that the few people who burn to death in car accidents prove that seat belts are a bad idea, because we can’t see the actual deaths prevented by belts would have happened without them. You might think you were saved, but you’ll never really know. The toxic waste produced by batteries taken from smoke detectors and burnt in incinerators or escaped/escaping in the future may take more lives than the smoke detectors ever saved. So, interesting to note, and truly sad. Worse than the alternative? Truly can’t say.

quantified 5y ago
For example, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ray-demonia-alabama-death-cardiac-event-icu-full/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ray-demonia-alabama-death-cardi... Here’s an adult who can’t live because of all the covid patients.
literallyaduck 5y ago
This is the Trolly Car Problem. Is it ethical to say I'm making a choice to kill some to save more?
- quantified 5y ago
  Sort of, indeed. I’d say this is a fuzzy evil (psycho kitten?) trolley car problem where you don’t know anything precise or accurate about either side. And, well, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is a good starting point until you can make actual judgement calls about the individuals. If one of the infants was the Antichrist, good call. If one of them was the only one smart enough to conceive the equations that unlock virtually free energy or the social engineering required to avert a national disaster, oops.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Imagine there's two different trolleys. The first one will kill 50 people if you don't pull the lever, or 10 people if you do. The second one will kill 1 person if you don't pull the lever, or 5 people if you do. There's valid debate both ways as to whether you should pull the first lever, but you obviously definitely should not pull the second lever. But in the case of COVID restrictions, society has decided that for reasons I don't understand, pulling just one lever is out of the question, and they can't pull either unless they pull both. (In case the analogy isn't clear, the first lever is COVID restrictions on high-risk people and anyone who lives with or takes care of them, and the second lever is COVID restrictions on everyone else.)
leokennis 5y ago
To be honest, I can truly say. COVID deaths mainly occur in old(er) people and people with existing health issues (of course those groups overlap a lot). So the lockdowns primarily benefit those groups. Unfortunately, if those groups do not die of COVID, they will die of old age and/or their other health issues sooner than other groups anyway. So, the benefit of any medical act should be measured in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year. The same surgery might be worth the effort and recovery when performed on an infant who will live for another 80 years; you would not perform it on someone aged 99 so they can live for 1 more year. In short and very bluntly stated, they let 4 babies die (let's say conservatively about 250 QUALY's) to have some old people live 1 or 2 years longer. Which is a disgrace.