3 ms·
> Could it be that many of those people whose death was caused by pollution may have been frail and close to death anyway? What point are you trying to make? I
by motorest 2y ago
> Could it be that many of those people whose death was caused by pollution may have been frail and close to death anyway?
What point are you trying to make? I mean, you don't seem to dispute that pollution can and does kill people.
- concordDance 2y agoYeah, but there's a big difference between dying a few months earlier when you'd already be bedridden with your mind mostly gone and dying 50 years early. Which is why QALYs are such a good metric.
- zemvpferreira 2y agoYou make a good point but I think adding QALYs to this discussion is unnecessary complication, for one reason: like most public health menaces, pollution will impact lifespan and healthspan proportionatly, ie you’ll die sooner and also live worse years if you’re exposed. There is a proportionately better chance of ageing well and dieing later if you avoid it. QALYs really shine when measuring a one-off risk, such as an operation or cancer treatment that might add lifespan but decrease healthspan. If QALY data exists for pollution that’s great, but I think we can easily extrapolate the impact in healthspan from the toll in lifespan.
- motorest 2y ago> Yeah, but there's a big difference between dying a few months earlier (...) What leads you to believe that's the case? And again what's the point of ignoring health risks because some victims might possibly have lower life expectancies?