3 ms·

What will be interesting is looking at data 5-10 years out. If most of the deaths were in the elderly, Covid simply accelerated their death by X years. You’d

by refurb 4y ago

What will be interesting is looking at data 5-10 years out. If most of the deaths were in the elderly, Covid simply accelerated their death by X years. You’d expect that you’d see a reduction in deaths over the next ~10 years (when those people would have died from other causes).

lapcat 4y ago
> If most of the deaths were in the elderly, Covid simply accelerated their death by X years. "simply"?
- badcppdev 4y ago
  I was trying to write a reply to call out the use of that word. People need to be more careful with their language.
  - zaroth 4y ago
    All causes of death “simply” accelerated another subsequent cause of death.
  - conductr 4y ago
    It’s difficult to talk about some subjects online when people are so keen to mince other people’s words like this. They obviously meant nothing by it and you’re letting pedantry invalidate the point they were making. I’d prefer if you’d lower your editorial expectations for casual internet discussions more than I’d prefer everyone edit their word choices so carefully (unrealistic expectation honestly). Not meant to pick on you, this is a common thing I see when certain topics are discussed but it does not benefit the discussion at all.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Maybe the point was that they should have meant something by it. We're talking about death and misery on an immense scale, and certainly many of the people reading any comment here will have been affected, will be sitting alone reading this when they otherwise wouldn't. Is it so awful to ask people to consider that, to weigh their words carefully, given this context?
      - conductr 4y ago
        Or yet another possibility is “simply” meant that the concept of people dying earlier than they otherwise would have is just an easy to grep concept most laymen can understand and thus a simple concept to discuss. If only. This is a leaky medium for communication. It’s fast and casual and only text. Over analyzing each word is fine, but if you don’t like the word choice just move on. Trying to educate people to communicate how you want them to is a losing battle. Also this node of the conversation is about data and analytics and now pedantry more than the underlying topic of death.
    - badcppdev 4y ago
      Pedantry is about minor errors. I think it is careless to refer to millions of deaths like that. But we might be coming with different expectations. This might be a serious discussion or it might be a casual internet discussion. Do you agree that if it's serious then people should be more careful with their words? And if it's casual then are you complaining that I've strayed off topic?
- bvhvhfcgxfdf 4y ago
  Yeah this is the problem I have with COVID discourse. Simply no regard for elderlies because they don't dominate the pop culture discussion. They way we have sacrificed our older people to COVID will be one of the worst atrocities commited in human history.
- smeej 4y ago
  Ultimately isn't that what any cause of death does? "Accelerate death" from whenever the second-worst thing you had going on would have gotten you? I think I get what the parent comment was going for (i.e., that it only moved the date of death a little bit, as opposed to how the death of an otherwise healthy child would imply a date of death that moved a lot), but it's a weird way to say it.
- refurb 4y ago
  You’d make a poor healthcare statistician getting upset over words like that. Does it upset you the UK government values a year of human life at about 30,000 GBP?
  - lapcat 4y ago
    Where do you get "upset" from one word in quotation marks, followed by a question mark? It was an invitation for clarification about what you meant. How would you distinguish Covid from, say, murder, which also accelerates deaths by X years? It's true that if the death rate is higher now, then the death rate may be lower in the future, but I'm not sure that's a useful way of thinking. If the death rate were 100% now, then the death rate would be 0% in the future. It all balances out, right? Except, that's not the way it works, because the dead never get their years or lives back. We're all mortal and will eventually die sooner or later. But in most cases, later is much better than sooner. I'd also mention that you probably wouldn't appreciate having 30,000X GBP stolen from you.
    - refurb 4y ago
      You seem to be missing the point. Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equivalent to a young child dying. You can make good public health policy without measuring the gains and costs of any particular policy. Saying “were going to save every single life no matter what” is a path to ruin.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > You seem to be missing the point. > Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? No, I understand your point very well now. It is what I always thought it was. Someday you may feel differently. If you live long enough, you may finally understand. But then it'll be too late, and the generations younger than you will also want to send you on "Logan's Run".
        refurb 4y ago
AndrewThrowaway 4y ago
I also thought about this. In 5-10 years it would equalize as consecutive years would have less deaths. Then again you will have excess deaths because of mental health problems that covid causes, medical problems because medical care was not available and etc. These would not equalize.
xboxnolifes 4y ago
All deaths are an acceleration of death, old or young. We haven't yet found immortality.

by refurb 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> If most of the deaths were in the elderly, Covid simply accelerated their death by X years. "simply"?

badcppdev 4y ago
I was trying to write a reply to call out the use of that word. People need to be more careful with their language.
- zaroth 4y ago
  All causes of death “simply” accelerated another subsequent cause of death.
- conductr 4y ago
  It’s difficult to talk about some subjects online when people are so keen to mince other people’s words like this. They obviously meant nothing by it and you’re letting pedantry invalidate the point they were making. I’d prefer if you’d lower your editorial expectations for casual internet discussions more than I’d prefer everyone edit their word choices so carefully (unrealistic expectation honestly). Not meant to pick on you, this is a common thing I see when certain topics are discussed but it does not benefit the discussion at all.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Maybe the point was that they should have meant something by it. We're talking about death and misery on an immense scale, and certainly many of the people reading any comment here will have been affected, will be sitting alone reading this when they otherwise wouldn't. Is it so awful to ask people to consider that, to weigh their words carefully, given this context?
    - conductr 4y ago
      Or yet another possibility is “simply” meant that the concept of people dying earlier than they otherwise would have is just an easy to grep concept most laymen can understand and thus a simple concept to discuss. If only. This is a leaky medium for communication. It’s fast and casual and only text. Over analyzing each word is fine, but if you don’t like the word choice just move on. Trying to educate people to communicate how you want them to is a losing battle. Also this node of the conversation is about data and analytics and now pedantry more than the underlying topic of death.
  - badcppdev 4y ago
    Pedantry is about minor errors. I think it is careless to refer to millions of deaths like that. But we might be coming with different expectations. This might be a serious discussion or it might be a casual internet discussion. Do you agree that if it's serious then people should be more careful with their words? And if it's casual then are you complaining that I've strayed off topic?
bvhvhfcgxfdf 4y ago
Yeah this is the problem I have with COVID discourse. Simply no regard for elderlies because they don't dominate the pop culture discussion. They way we have sacrificed our older people to COVID will be one of the worst atrocities commited in human history.
smeej 4y ago
Ultimately isn't that what any cause of death does? "Accelerate death" from whenever the second-worst thing you had going on would have gotten you? I think I get what the parent comment was going for (i.e., that it only moved the date of death a little bit, as opposed to how the death of an otherwise healthy child would imply a date of death that moved a lot), but it's a weird way to say it.
refurb 4y ago
You’d make a poor healthcare statistician getting upset over words like that. Does it upset you the UK government values a year of human life at about 30,000 GBP?
- lapcat 4y ago
  Where do you get "upset" from one word in quotation marks, followed by a question mark? It was an invitation for clarification about what you meant. How would you distinguish Covid from, say, murder, which also accelerates deaths by X years? It's true that if the death rate is higher now, then the death rate may be lower in the future, but I'm not sure that's a useful way of thinking. If the death rate were 100% now, then the death rate would be 0% in the future. It all balances out, right? Except, that's not the way it works, because the dead never get their years or lives back. We're all mortal and will eventually die sooner or later. But in most cases, later is much better than sooner. I'd also mention that you probably wouldn't appreciate having 30,000X GBP stolen from you.
  - refurb 4y ago
    You seem to be missing the point. Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? Someone in an old age home near the end of their life dying isn’t equivalent to a young child dying. You can make good public health policy without measuring the gains and costs of any particular policy. Saying “were going to save every single life no matter what” is a path to ruin.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > You seem to be missing the point. > Sure, years of life are lost, but what kind of years? No, I understand your point very well now. It is what I always thought it was. Someday you may feel differently. If you live long enough, you may finally understand. But then it'll be too late, and the generations younger than you will also want to send you on "Logan's Run".
      - refurb 4y ago

AndrewThrowaway 4y ago

I also thought about this. In 5-10 years it would equalize as consecutive years would have less deaths. Then again you will have excess deaths because of mental health problems that covid causes, medical problems because medical care was not available and etc. These would not equalize.

xboxnolifes 4y ago

All deaths are an acceleration of death, old or young. We haven't yet found immortality.