4 ms·

> The optimal amount of [...] deaths [...] is not zero. That's not true. It assumes that there is an objective, known price for a life. Since you can't have e.

by tgv 3y ago

> The optimal amount of [...] deaths [...] is not zero. That's not true. It assumes that there is an objective, known price for a life. Since you can't have e.g. 0.1 deaths, there's no guarantee that the optimal amount is at least 1. It's more that it's the outcome of haggling, politics, and the willingness to turn a blind eye to the consequences of stupidity.

concordDance 3y ago
There's a price for life in a given society though. Due to resources being finite and wellbeing mattering. In the UK I believe NICE uses £30k/QALY as the price.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Yep, although short term end of life years are deemed more valuable (e.g. if you have 3 months to live and we can get you another 3 months, we'll pay more for those 3 months)[0]. And the number is a bit flexible based on other factors, I think. [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2017.1330152 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2017.1...
- tremon 3y ago
  £30k/QALY nit: pretty sure that should be £30k * QALY.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Imagine 10 km/h, the more hours you have drive the more kilometers you've driven. Similarly, with £/QALY the more QALYs you've paid for the more £ it will have cost.
nox101 3y ago
Maybe that's a poor way of stating the problem. In a zero tradeoff world, 0 deaths would be optimal. We don't live in that world though. For example, flying is supposedly safer than driving. Airplane crashes happen. We could demand zero deaths from the planes which would drive the costs up, causing more people to choose to drive, causing more deaths. So, in relation to airplanes, we can't choose zero deaths in the real world. We have to choose some imperfect trade off, otherwise we'll cause more deaths.
michaelt 3y ago
> Since you can't have e.g. 0.1 deaths True, but you can have 0.1 deaths per year, by having 1 death per 10 years. Of course, I agree there are some things that don't work well for that - nobody's going to be happy accepting "1 nuclear meltdown per 30 years" even if statistically it'd mean fewer deaths than coal.

by tgv 3y ago

concordDance 3y ago

There's a price for life in a given society though. Due to resources being finite and wellbeing mattering. In the UK I believe NICE uses £30k/QALY as the price.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Yep, although short term end of life years are deemed more valuable (e.g. if you have 3 months to live and we can get you another 3 months, we'll pay more for those 3 months)[0]. And the number is a bit flexible based on other factors, I think. [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2017.1330152 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737167.2017.1...
tremon 3y ago
£30k/QALY nit: pretty sure that should be £30k * QALY.
- concordDance 3y ago
  Imagine 10 km/h, the more hours you have drive the more kilometers you've driven. Similarly, with £/QALY the more QALYs you've paid for the more £ it will have cost.

nox101 3y ago

Maybe that's a poor way of stating the problem. In a zero tradeoff world, 0 deaths would be optimal. We don't live in that world though. For example, flying is supposedly safer than driving. Airplane crashes happen. We could demand zero deaths from the planes which would drive the costs up, causing more people to choose to drive, causing more deaths. So, in relation to airplanes, we can't choose zero deaths in the real world. We have to choose some imperfect trade off, otherwise we'll cause more deaths.

michaelt 3y ago

> Since you can't have e.g. 0.1 deaths True, but you can have 0.1 deaths per year, by having 1 death per 10 years. Of course, I agree there are some things that don't work well for that - nobody's going to be happy accepting "1 nuclear meltdown per 30 years" even if statistically it'd mean fewer deaths than coal.