> we shouldn’t just be ranking people by age, if we want to come to moral outcomes?

Agreed. But I think quantifications can still be useful.

Person-years probably aren't the right sort of quantification though, in that they blend together too many kinds of human experience. But I imagine most people would agree that statements like "X% of grandparents, lost 10 years earlier than expected" or "Y% of children under 10" allow for comparing the relative impact on families.

Quantifying losses doesn't mean that we consider the quantified as fungible.

> Quantifying losses doesn't mean that we consider the quantified as fungible.

Unless you're a hospital director on a budget, or something. (I don't know how such people cope; there's no winning decision there.)

I don’t understand what you mean when you write person years of those children haven’t started yet? They were born, so how have their person years not started?

And in context of opportunity cost, in a situation where limited medical resources need to be allocated, it’s not a controversial opinion that a 90 year old can be let go in favor of saving a 10 year old.

The notion of valuing a life at age 15 higher than at age 5 is pretty reasonable. If the value starts at zero at conception, ends at zero at death, then -- if it's a continuous function -- there has to be a rising curve followed by a falling curve. And this seems to fit with some choices I'd make in contrived trolley problem scenarios. Though it's not the only variable, when you get to particularities.