4 ms·

First, you are literally just repeating the claim without taking into account whether this was 78 year old dying one year earlier or wether this was a 20 year o

by rsj_hn 5y ago

First, you are literally just repeating the claim without taking into account whether this was 78 year old dying one year earlier or wether this was a 20 year old soldier dying in war. Second, you are not counting how many of these excess deaths were due to the reaction to covid because people were denied access to doctor's care. My best friend's father died because he was in an VA care facility and could not get any access to a doctor to diagnose his skin cancer. Because of covid. By the time he got someone to look at his skin, the cancer had spread and he died shortly thereafter. During the entire time, his family was not allowed to see him. Only when they moved him to hospice did they allow mercy visits. So at least one of those "excess deaths" was due to the reaction to covid, not covid itself. Third, the death count will keep increasing as the toll of deferred cancer screenings and medical treatment continues, as does the toll of people who lost their careers, the small business they spent their life building, their housing, and their savings. That will continue far beyond 2021. * Important cancer screenings decreased due to covid: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/important-cancer-screenings-have-decreased-during-covid-19 https://www.healthline.com/health-news/important-cancer-scre... * Learning loss due to school closures: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2022376118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2022376118 * Effects of job loss on health: Layoffs could increase mortality rates by 10.3% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5495022/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5495022/ * Long term unemployment and mortality, mental health: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/23921/412887-Consequences-of-Long-Term-Unemployment.PDF https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/23921/... The idea that every bad thing must be stopped "at all costs" is terrible, hysterical public policy. Many times the solution may be worse than the cure, and merely restating "but the disease is so bad" does not mean that destroying social bonds and the labor market is a good idea for the society over the long term.

WalterGR 5y ago
“Approximately 75%–88% of excess deaths were directly associated with COVID-19. Excluding deaths directly associated with COVID-19, an estimated 63,700–162,400 more persons than expected died from other causes.” The numbers you want are out there - many in the report I linked. (The preceding quote is from it as well.) I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to attach a, what, dollar amount loss or amount of appropriate grieving to each person’s death.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  > The numbers you want are out there The long term cost numbers will become known. But let's say that over a 3 year period there are 600,000 excess deaths, of which 80% are due to covid, so that would be 1.4 million life years, and then after that it goes back to normal (I'm not claiming these are the numbers -- in the future we will know the numbers). Assuming that one battle death in a war reduces 40 life years, then this would be 35,000 military deaths, in terms of life years. You would need 14 million life years to get 350K ~ WW2 deaths. And 28 million life years to get ~ Civil War. But the relevant number is how many more life years would be lost if we didn't adopt these measures. And here, it's not clear at all what the covid life years saved as a result of the lockdowns would be. I do think in the future we will get estimates of this, but we certainly don't have that data today, so merely arguing that many are dying today is not a good justification for the today's policies. I am really confused by how any criticism of today's policies is responded by how many have died under those policies, as if that was some kind of defense for the efficacy of the policies. On the other side, start counting the costs of the policies, which will continue for many years, and compare to the number of life years saved if some of these measures weren't taken. Measures that resulted in perhaps 10 million people losing their career, millions of small businesses going bankrupt, tens of millions of children losing 1 year of schooling, etc. Then look at mortality effects of these things. It's not at all clear that a less strict lockdown would have cost more lives than it would have saved. In fact it's hard to ascribe lifeyears saved to any specific policy profile. At least not to me. Unlike the other side, I am not making strident claims that because a lot of people are dying with lockdowns, that the lockdowns are necessary. But again time will tell -- people insisting the answer is obvious don't make any sense to me.
- peteradio 5y ago
  How many of those 75-88% were truly preventable deaths? And how many of those "other causes" were truly preventable? If a 90 year old man with failing health catches Covid is that a truly preventable death? Its at least murky what is meant there. My great uncle had both legs amputated the day before he died in some vain attempt to extend his life. Was that intervention necessary? He was doomed to die by all estimates within the week.
rzzzwilson 5y ago
> First, you are literally just repeating the claim without taking into account whether this was 78 year old dying one year earlier Research the meaning of "excess deaths".
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  First, I'm talking about life-years, not excess deaths. Second, I'm talking about opportunity cost. Saying that a lot of people died under your preferred policy does not measure what the opportunity cost of that policy is. It really has nothing to do with it, or if anything, undermines your point.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > First, I'm talking about life-years, not excess deaths. Is this a repeat of the ageist "I don't care if those older than me are killed" sociopath mantra?

by rsj_hn 5y ago

WalterGR 5y ago

“Approximately 75%–88% of excess deaths were directly associated with COVID-19. Excluding deaths directly associated with COVID-19, an estimated 63,700–162,400 more persons than expected died from other causes.” The numbers you want are out there - many in the report I linked. (The preceding quote is from it as well.) I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to attach a, what, dollar amount loss or amount of appropriate grieving to each person’s death.

rsj_hn 5y ago
> The numbers you want are out there The long term cost numbers will become known. But let's say that over a 3 year period there are 600,000 excess deaths, of which 80% are due to covid, so that would be 1.4 million life years, and then after that it goes back to normal (I'm not claiming these are the numbers -- in the future we will know the numbers). Assuming that one battle death in a war reduces 40 life years, then this would be 35,000 military deaths, in terms of life years. You would need 14 million life years to get 350K ~ WW2 deaths. And 28 million life years to get ~ Civil War. But the relevant number is how many more life years would be lost if we didn't adopt these measures. And here, it's not clear at all what the covid life years saved as a result of the lockdowns would be. I do think in the future we will get estimates of this, but we certainly don't have that data today, so merely arguing that many are dying today is not a good justification for the today's policies. I am really confused by how any criticism of today's policies is responded by how many have died under those policies, as if that was some kind of defense for the efficacy of the policies. On the other side, start counting the costs of the policies, which will continue for many years, and compare to the number of life years saved if some of these measures weren't taken. Measures that resulted in perhaps 10 million people losing their career, millions of small businesses going bankrupt, tens of millions of children losing 1 year of schooling, etc. Then look at mortality effects of these things. It's not at all clear that a less strict lockdown would have cost more lives than it would have saved. In fact it's hard to ascribe lifeyears saved to any specific policy profile. At least not to me. Unlike the other side, I am not making strident claims that because a lot of people are dying with lockdowns, that the lockdowns are necessary. But again time will tell -- people insisting the answer is obvious don't make any sense to me.
peteradio 5y ago
How many of those 75-88% were truly preventable deaths? And how many of those "other causes" were truly preventable? If a 90 year old man with failing health catches Covid is that a truly preventable death? Its at least murky what is meant there. My great uncle had both legs amputated the day before he died in some vain attempt to extend his life. Was that intervention necessary? He was doomed to die by all estimates within the week.

rzzzwilson 5y ago

> First, you are literally just repeating the claim without taking into account whether this was 78 year old dying one year earlier Research the meaning of "excess deaths".

rsj_hn 5y ago
First, I'm talking about life-years, not excess deaths. Second, I'm talking about opportunity cost. Saying that a lot of people died under your preferred policy does not measure what the opportunity cost of that policy is. It really has nothing to do with it, or if anything, undermines your point.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > First, I'm talking about life-years, not excess deaths. Is this a repeat of the ageist "I don't care if those older than me are killed" sociopath mantra?