Economists and medical ethicists calculate that exchange rate as the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) metric. It was originally designed to provide guidance on medical interventions but the same calculation can be applied to public health measures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year

The exchange rate for the most successful lock-downs of corona is about 60 years of lock-down for 1 year of life.

Edit: Note that USA is doing much worse since so many are dying there even though you lock down.

It's not possible to calculate that exchange rate, because you don't have access to the counterfactual. You're not taking the ratio of lockdown years to years lost to deaths, right? Both of those belong in the expenses side...

Sweden didn't lock down, that is the typical worst case you would get. So lives saved is the deaths per pop in Sweden compared to deaths per pop where you are.

The picture you’re painting doesn’t represent reality — there were definitely lock downs (mostly related to elderly care, but also to varying degrees for the general public). People have worked from home since February.

You, as so many other, are ignorant about Sweden. We have had rules about social distancing, visit band in elderly homes, social distancing and washing hands. And if possible, work from home. Schools from age 16 are distance nu teaching, so are universitets.

All gatherings över 50 persons are forbiden and we are to told to not travel IF not needed.

We still uphold laws, so the government bor riksdag can force lockdown om People. But can close Stores and restaurants that doesn't follow rules.

And about Corona deaths, we are probably have more correct reports of deaths than many countries, like UK. Which probably are under reporting.

That based on all deaths reporter. The exccess deaths compared to previous five years are about the same as the reporter Covid-19 deaths. And the över deaths in Sweden are in pair with Denmark, higher then Norway but lower that Finland and Scotland (yes, part of UK).

And Finland has Hard lockdown, so Scotland and Denmark.

Even IF you compare Copenhagen area with Skåne area (South part of Sweden) with about same population, the death rate reporter of Covid-19 is higher in Copenhagen. There are areas in Sweden that have lower death rates then Finland, on pair with Finland.

So No, you are basically ignorant of the death rates of Sweden.

And yes, death rates of Covid-19 in Sweden are still lower than some bad influenza years, like in 2000. Even through the population in Sweden was smaller then, total number of deaths in flue was Word. And letting children go to school was a good Choice, as Corona isn't pushed by children, many are better going to school then forced to be at home. And they are not loosing important time in school with their friends and some normalities.

And the all deaths are now down to under normal years. Most thanks to the changed in behaviour has almost erased the flue in Sweden.

Comparing total deaths data, without different rules to define IF deaths are Covid-19 or not, shows that the lockdown in UK, Denmark and Finland did not do much difference. Not compared to Sweden, with moderate and mostly informed population about how to defeat the spread of the Corona virus.

But, that isn't interesting to wrote about, I guess. As it could show that the lockdown is the only solution, that it also cost life and sufferings.

Links on demands.

No, Sweden has an exceptionally low population density. You cannot just grab a country and take it as a model for any other country. The same measures as in Sweden would lead to a catastrophe in many other countries.

is a year in the life of an 82 year old (median age of covid death) the same as a year in the life of a 10, 20 or 30 year old?

I sure think not. So the comparisons are a bit moot.

trading 60 years of 30 year olds for 1 year of an 82 year old is a trade that probably no 82 year old would want.

I never saw a lawbook that stated that murdering an 82 year old was punished lighter than murdering a 20 year old.

This is what happens is democratic societies with a demographic pyramid that's upside down: lots of old and relatively few young. Politicians want to get re-elected and cater to the largest, most influential voter group (old people) and disregard younger voters agendas.

> lots of old and relatively few young. Politicians want to get re-elected and cater to the largest, most influential voter group (old people) and disregard younger voters agendas.

I really don't follow your argument. Do you believe young voters are totally indifferent to the idea of seeing their parents and grandparents die?

It is not about old people, they don't want this either. If anything old people are a lot more conservative and libertarian. Once you are 82 you sure made piece with dying after all most people you grew up with have long passed.

It is more about catering to the sort of voter that is easily scared, exposed for the first time to the fact that life is indeed fragile and limited, a voter that looks at someone to protect them.

Old people are the pawns and "protecting" them is the spectacle of demonstrating competence in governing.

There's a standard way of looking at this, and in the US the answer is yes, the life of everyone is worth the same, and that's how other economic decisions are made in the US (e.g. safety regulations need to meet this same standard). Suddenly changing the way you value lives to suit a particular outcome for a particular decision doesn't seem right. If you are going to look into the economics you should consider not only deaths but costs of all other hospitalizations, long term effects and various other second order effects. (check out the recent Planet Money episode about the value of lives in the US and their discussion of whether or not the US should lock down, tl;dr economically yes by orders of magnitude).

Stuff like highway safety is done with a single cost per human life saved. That's fine there, since the cause of death isn't terribly sensitive to age (and to the extent that it is, there are effects in both directions--young people drive more and more dangerously, but are more likely to survive a given accident, so it partially nets out).

But like many diseases, the coronavirus is far more sensitive--the IFR for a 75-year-old is >100x that of a 25-year-old[1]. That's the reason why health care spending is near-universally assessed by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. To do otherwise would yield absurd results, paying the same to restore a dying child to perfect health as to extend a centenarian's life by another month of agony. Around the usual ~$100k per QALY saved and counting both the deaths and loss of quality in severe but non-fatal cases, I believe that masks, social distancing, remote working where possible, and closure of the highest-risk businesses (theaters, nightclubs, etc.) until a vaccine is available are likely cost-effective, but facility closures beyond that are not (except to any extent required to stop the medical system from getting overrun).

1. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

This is precisely why I think impact to average life expectancy should be considered the most relevant metric.

what if you die next year (of a different cause) and the quarantine robbed you from your last year, would you make the same trade?

If it kept my loved ones and other random people from dying, sure. Everyone optimizing for their own benefit only is bowing down to the altar of Moloch.

Statistically speaking, deaths from random causes will not increase by 1% in the next year (assuming that the death rate of COVID-19 is 1%).

the point I was making is that the value of a year in you life and what the quarantine takes from you depends on other factors.

If you look at your argument without the "I bias", there is (or at least I'd argue there is strong empirical evidence for) a tradeoff between "lives saved [from Covid]" and "decrease in the quality of life" which IMHO is the argument of the OC.

what of those who don't quarantine, get covid, and pass the virus on to their elderly relatives? would you make the same trade?

The what if's get awfully tired.

My mother _actually_ passed from cancer in May. I sure wish I could've spent more time with her before that happened despite any risks.

uh no,

I would most certainly trade the past six months for a normal life even if it meant that I would die six months sooner.

wouldn't you?

No, considering that the past 6 months also mean my parents and grandparents stayed safe, which I actually care about a little bit. Not to mention my God-parents, uncles, and the well-being of my friends' relatives.

We live in a society, and Covid19 is not just a question of personal choices.

Not to mention, people who have defied quarantine orders and have spread this to their loved ones can become depressed and suicidal, so quality of life for many who would spread this disease will become abysmal.

thats not the deal though. You would be trading 6 months of isolation for the possibility of dying 50 years sooner

wait if you put it that way that is not the deal either,

six months of isolation for a 1/100,000 chance of dying 50 years sooner,

turns out I take that chance of dying each time I climb a mountain, and I get back less value than what is on offer in your trade

Not sure how you get that number, but if you didn't isolate, wouldn't your chance of dying higher?

this is a risk/benefit analysis, we are talking about tradeoffs

would I trade getting out of six months of quarantine if the price was the chance of 1/100,000 of dying. Of course I would.

I contrasted that to the fact that I frequently take on much higher risks of dying (mountaineering) for a lot less payoff (it is fun).

(the 1/100,000 is an estimate based on existing data for my age group)

That is the estimated risk of death, not the risk of becoming a carrier of the disease, possibly an asymptomatic one, who spreads it to others.

This is what's really frustrating about this whole "trade-off" argument: it's fine to make trade-offs for yourself, but you do not have the right to implicitly force your choice on others. If you sit within six feet of me not wearing a mask, my risk of falling off a mountain does not increase by any measurable amount. If you have Covid-19 and don't know it yet, the same cannot be said.

how is anyone forcing anything on you?

also where and in what way did the mask pop into this at all?

we are talking about what a person would trade aka risk vs reward

The OP is just pointing out you live in a community.

So this is not just about what is good for you, but instead what is good for the community.

For example, having you out of quarantine early might be good for you, but it will definitely not be good for many others.

No, glofish understood the deal right. It varies a lot from person to person.

Look at the revealed preferences.

A grandparent might accept a 20% chance of dying, if it means regularly taking their grandchild to the park in the last few good years of life they have left. Most of the people at great risk of CORVID only have a few good years left.

Or, look at things like obesity or smoking or drinking (all of which might be getting worse - will people develop bad habits in quarantine?). People are willing to take risks (and overburden the health system) over lots of things, and we accept that the government shouldn't make it illegal.

Actually, why don't we just create quarantine safe old people's homes, and force them all into it? Then we can protect old people in quarantine, and let young people risk CORVID to build up herd immunity, then plunge the country into a brief elimination lockdown. It would be kinda inhumane to the old people we would be locking up (though people seem willing to take extreme measures anyway) but at least it would be quick.