6 ms·

When you try to mix human morbidity and mortality with market economics, basically you just piss everyone off. I mean, if I want to be crass about it, I could a

When you try to mix human morbidity and mortality with market economics, basically you just piss everyone off. I mean, if I want to be crass about it, I could ask you who's life you value more - your father or your son, your aunt or your niece? And how much money are you willing to pay to extend the life of any of these people. We are hesitant to ask these questions for good reason.

babyshake 5y ago
Same problem occurs when it comes to socialized healthcare, or just healthcare in general.
Gigachad 5y ago
The government already has these answers. There is a value assigned to life per year it could be extended. For some reason that was thrown out the window for covid.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  Where do they publish the numbers? I'm curious what I'm worth.
  - 317070 5y ago
    In the UK, this might be a good place to start: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-risks-to-life-and-health-monetary-value-of-a-life-year-voly https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-risk... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-risks-to-life-and-health-monetary-value-of-a-life-year-voly/a-scoping-study-on-the-valuation-of-risks-to-life-and-health-the-monetary-value-of-a-life-year-voly https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-risk... tl;dr, if memory serves correctly, it's about 60k GBP per full health year left. So 2 years at 50% health is 1 full health year, with formulas to tell you what 50% health means exactly. I don't know of other countries that make this calculation so explicitly.
  - phkahler 5y ago
    Google for SVM statistical value of human life. If I recall correctly.
CWuestefeld 5y ago
As the song goes, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". The fact that we've steadfastly refused to verbalize the implicit choices that have been made doesn't change anything about what was actually done.
- babyshake 5y ago
  This also applies to the workplace. Good management involves understanding that even the lack of a choice is a choice.
makomk 5y ago
The NHS in the UK - whose low, low costs certain US political activists point to as proof public healthcare is not just better but cheaper - literally does this. There's a fixed amount they're willing to spend per expected year of healthy life saved, adjusted for quality of life during that time, and treatments that are expected to cost more than that aren't available on the NHS. This is surprisingly uncontroversial, possibly because the NHS as an institution is basically beyond questioning. However, the same reasoning was not applied in the UK over Covid; the mainstream consensus was that anyone who prioritised the economy over stopping Covid was an evil murderer, and every single Covid death that happened was caused by our government not stopping it.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  Yes, any public healthcare system will obviously make these calculations. Private insurers also do this in the US however they are more limited in what they can do to control costs. I suspect that because there is one universal system, people accept that they're all more or less bound by the same rules (I'm aware there is private care in the UK too), whereas in the US it can be pretty arbitrary as to who gets healthcare; obviously money helps but there are multiple single payer systems (lol) that some belong to also.
- david38 5y ago
  This is the way. Hand waving morality and preciousness of life leads to a very few getting all the treatment. (The first part)
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    We could easily afford preserving as many people's lives as possible in this situation. > preciousness of life Let's not belittle it; it is indeed extremely precious.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  > the mainstream consensus was that anyone who prioritised the economy over stopping Covid was an evil murderer, and every single Covid death that happened was caused by our government not stopping it. This poses a false dichotomy between strict lockdowns and economic growth. The UK had both bad death rates and a bad economic hit compared to other countries in europe. I think the conservatives tried to balance the short-term interests of the economy against case numbers, and ultimately ended up muddling about in the middle, which was why they ended up with the worst of both worlds. The countries that did really well in the pandemic (east asian countries) typically went for what seemed like drastic measures in the early stages. As time went on, it's become apparent that their liberties, economies, and also case numbers were all far less impacted by the pandemic compared to western countries that had to go into emergency lockdowns as case counts soared out of control. Even in the limited context of western europe, one of the reasons why the UK had so many days in lockdown (more than France or Germany, often with more stringent rules, iirc) was because they prevaricated so much about bringing in lockdowns, then had to make them much tighter to compensate.
HideousKojima 5y ago
>I mean, if I want to be crass about it, I could ask you who's life you value more - your father or your son, your aunt or your niece? That's an incredibly easy one, if I had kids it would be my kids over my parents, and I'm certain my parents would agree and be willing to sacrifice themselves to save their grandkids if it truly came to that. The fact that this apparently isn't the default moral calculus for most people (as shown by the pandemic response) is deeply troubling to me.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Also an extremely easy answer for me to choose the future over the past. There was no reason my grandpa should have been getting dialysis paid for by taxpayers at the age of 93. For years. Give him access to assisted suicide and invest that money into the nation’s children. And while it is probably easier to talk the talk than walk the walk, I do not want a dime spent on me once I am chronically unable to do simple tasks myself. If I need 24/7 care, then I like to think I will opt to take myself out.
  - hotpotamus 5y ago
    See this is where the hypotheticals go. Let's say your grandpa doesn't want to do the assisted suicide thing. Are you willing to "withdraw care" (the medical term for when doctors kill people on purpose) or even take more active measures? I know the arithmetic is pretty obvious but as you say walking the walk is something different entirely.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      If the question is would I want a significant share of society’s resources to not go towards extending the life of a 93 year old, then my answer is no. Of course, I would not want society to force anyone to accept assisted suicide (which would not really be suicide).
      - hotpotamus 5y ago
        Ok, what if we tell the grandparent that we'll take half of their expected costs for care and give that to their grandchildren's college funds if they go through with the suicide? Is that an acceptable compromise or horrible dystopian bargain? Basically it's the trolley problem in that there are endless hypotheticals you can construct to determine your values, but as I said it can get pretty distasteful.

babyshake 5y ago

Same problem occurs when it comes to socialized healthcare, or just healthcare in general.

Gigachad 5y ago

The government already has these answers. There is a value assigned to life per year it could be extended. For some reason that was thrown out the window for covid.

hotpotamus 5y ago
Where do they publish the numbers? I'm curious what I'm worth.
- 317070 5y ago
  In the UK, this might be a good place to start: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-risks-to-life-and-health-monetary-value-of-a-life-year-voly https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-risk... https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-risks-to-life-and-health-monetary-value-of-a-life-year-voly/a-scoping-study-on-the-valuation-of-risks-to-life-and-health-the-monetary-value-of-a-life-year-voly https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuation-of-risk... tl;dr, if memory serves correctly, it's about 60k GBP per full health year left. So 2 years at 50% health is 1 full health year, with formulas to tell you what 50% health means exactly. I don't know of other countries that make this calculation so explicitly.
- phkahler 5y ago
  Google for SVM statistical value of human life. If I recall correctly.

CWuestefeld 5y ago

As the song goes, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". The fact that we've steadfastly refused to verbalize the implicit choices that have been made doesn't change anything about what was actually done.

babyshake 5y ago
This also applies to the workplace. Good management involves understanding that even the lack of a choice is a choice.

makomk 5y ago

The NHS in the UK - whose low, low costs certain US political activists point to as proof public healthcare is not just better but cheaper - literally does this. There's a fixed amount they're willing to spend per expected year of healthy life saved, adjusted for quality of life during that time, and treatments that are expected to cost more than that aren't available on the NHS. This is surprisingly uncontroversial, possibly because the NHS as an institution is basically beyond questioning. However, the same reasoning was not applied in the UK over Covid; the mainstream consensus was that anyone who prioritised the economy over stopping Covid was an evil murderer, and every single Covid death that happened was caused by our government not stopping it.

hotpotamus 5y ago
Yes, any public healthcare system will obviously make these calculations. Private insurers also do this in the US however they are more limited in what they can do to control costs. I suspect that because there is one universal system, people accept that they're all more or less bound by the same rules (I'm aware there is private care in the UK too), whereas in the US it can be pretty arbitrary as to who gets healthcare; obviously money helps but there are multiple single payer systems (lol) that some belong to also.
david38 5y ago
This is the way. Hand waving morality and preciousness of life leads to a very few getting all the treatment. (The first part)
- wolverine876 5y ago
  We could easily afford preserving as many people's lives as possible in this situation. > preciousness of life Let's not belittle it; it is indeed extremely precious.
pasabagi 5y ago
> the mainstream consensus was that anyone who prioritised the economy over stopping Covid was an evil murderer, and every single Covid death that happened was caused by our government not stopping it. This poses a false dichotomy between strict lockdowns and economic growth. The UK had both bad death rates and a bad economic hit compared to other countries in europe. I think the conservatives tried to balance the short-term interests of the economy against case numbers, and ultimately ended up muddling about in the middle, which was why they ended up with the worst of both worlds. The countries that did really well in the pandemic (east asian countries) typically went for what seemed like drastic measures in the early stages. As time went on, it's become apparent that their liberties, economies, and also case numbers were all far less impacted by the pandemic compared to western countries that had to go into emergency lockdowns as case counts soared out of control. Even in the limited context of western europe, one of the reasons why the UK had so many days in lockdown (more than France or Germany, often with more stringent rules, iirc) was because they prevaricated so much about bringing in lockdowns, then had to make them much tighter to compensate.

HideousKojima 5y ago

>I mean, if I want to be crass about it, I could ask you who's life you value more - your father or your son, your aunt or your niece? That's an incredibly easy one, if I had kids it would be my kids over my parents, and I'm certain my parents would agree and be willing to sacrifice themselves to save their grandkids if it truly came to that. The fact that this apparently isn't the default moral calculus for most people (as shown by the pandemic response) is deeply troubling to me.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
Also an extremely easy answer for me to choose the future over the past. There was no reason my grandpa should have been getting dialysis paid for by taxpayers at the age of 93. For years. Give him access to assisted suicide and invest that money into the nation’s children. And while it is probably easier to talk the talk than walk the walk, I do not want a dime spent on me once I am chronically unable to do simple tasks myself. If I need 24/7 care, then I like to think I will opt to take myself out.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  See this is where the hypotheticals go. Let's say your grandpa doesn't want to do the assisted suicide thing. Are you willing to "withdraw care" (the medical term for when doctors kill people on purpose) or even take more active measures? I know the arithmetic is pretty obvious but as you say walking the walk is something different entirely.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    If the question is would I want a significant share of society’s resources to not go towards extending the life of a 93 year old, then my answer is no. Of course, I would not want society to force anyone to accept assisted suicide (which would not really be suicide).
    - hotpotamus 5y ago
      Ok, what if we tell the grandparent that we'll take half of their expected costs for care and give that to their grandchildren's college funds if they go through with the suicide? Is that an acceptable compromise or horrible dystopian bargain? Basically it's the trolley problem in that there are endless hypotheticals you can construct to determine your values, but as I said it can get pretty distasteful.