The reality is quite different. We accept a risk of death to ourselves and others in everything we do. You do it, too. Everything. You even risk death by doing nothing.
You could say "if it cost $1b to save this life, we should do it". But how many lives could be saved at $1b each before we run out of money? Then what? And what about the lives that could have been saved at $1m apiece?
If someone not willing to give up all of his assets to save someone else's life, is he uncivilized and morally wrong?
This a common, yet unrealistic, hypothetical. In reality, of course, death is inevitable regardless of the economic costs. Past a certain point everybody, so far, has died. The amount of things that we can do in order to prevent any given death doesn't scale with the economic cost, past a certain (quite low) point. Spending 1B on a person won't get you 1000 times better 'medical stuff' than spending 1 million; therefore, a trade-off of e.g. one life for 1B vs 1000 lives for 1m is illusory.
In practice all societies have limited resources. My position is, however, that those limited resources, in the case of an acute health crisis, should be focused as much as possible on mitigating that crisis, without having primary concern for the economic costs.
It absolutely isn't; it is complete nonsense.
Firstly, it directly conflicts with right to die; it asserts that if we can intervene in any suicide, then we should. How can stepping on the right to die be elevated to a gold standard?
Some people take risks, and those risks are fatal. Deaths in dangerous sports and other activities are easily preventable: just forcibly take away the right to engage in them. Closing off Mt. Everest to climbers will certainly prevent deaths. By your gold standard, that must be what should be done.
Preventing some deaths may even require lives to to be imperiled; someone has to be asked to risk their own life to save others.
No, no, no; live and let die is the gold standard.
People should be sometimes left to the consequences of their actions and circumstances and that includes dying. Obviously not always, and not as a rule, but sometimes. Often enough that "all preventable deaths should be prevented" is utterly preposterous.
Secondly, most of your post conflates me engangering myself my choice ( i choose a dangerous sport and suffer) vs someone else endangering me (unsafe building collapses on my head).
I'm willing to bet that you have taken many unnecessary car trips in your life. By doing so you have increased the risk to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians of suffering a fatal accident. Sure, it's a very small increase, but surely that outweighs your selfish desire to visit your friends or go to a movie.
Casually weighing human life against economic cost is not acceptable in what we might call a civilized society.
It's not only acceptable, it's essential in order to make reasonable decisions.
Deaths caused by the regular flu are deeply regrettable and should be prevented as much as possible.
So, quarantines every winter?
Casually? Sure that’s not good. But we weigh human life against cost all the time.
In the U.K. they value 1 QALY (Quality adjusted life year) at $50k. It’s very explicit.
People forget that economic activity is what pays for healthcare, welfare, etc.
You can’t ignore economics.
The collective response has been outsized to the actual risk of death, and I believe this is due to fear rather than sensible policymaking.
If it really was about reducing all cause mortality, most governments could do so much to reduce the primary causes of death, like heart disease and cancer, by banning things like cigarettes and enforcing healthier diets among the populace.
Imagine what banning sugar alone would do to the rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes in the US. But no one wants to do that.
We abort 600K fetuses in the US every year. By our behavior, life is cheap.
You are just making up some arbitrary standard of "civilized society" that doesnt exist and is meaningless.
Economists have determined that people value their lives at about 100K. The govt through policy values a human life between 8 and 10 million
Right now you could spend $100 to save a life of a child in africa, yet instead you spend that money on frivolous luxuries.
Yes, in reality a lot of people die driving cars all around the world no matter the amount of on board safety devices and yet cars are legal everywhere. There are countless similar examples.
Preventable is what people agree or tolerate to prevent.
Secondly, the flue has quite reason, like year 2000, taken more lifes in Sweden then what Corona has taken this year. And I would be surprised if that would be exceptional to Sweden. That not even consider there are more people living in Sweden today then 20 years ago. A couple of years earlier, the death rate per 100 000 was higher then Corona this spring.
Source, Swedish statistical agency. http://SCB.se/
And yes, there are some strong indications that there was Corona in Sweden in December, in Svärdsjö, Dalecarlia. A woman that has not been outside of the region got Corona signs on X rays of her lungs. And that I guess isn't exceptional either. So, we probably hade Covid-19 a lot earlier than we has thought. Which could explain the explosion of the spread.
Human life and economic cost are not separate things. The economy is a comprehensive (if incomplete) description human life. When we shut down the economy we cause millions to lose jobs, to lose incomes, to lose structure, to lose community, to lose activities that give their lives purpose and joy.
The economic shut down is killing people. It's also reducing quality of life and length of life. That's not to say it's not worth it. The effects of lockdown are hard to measure and no one can be sure if it's worth it or not. But this framing of economic cost vs human life as if it's just a little money is wildly inaccurate and damaging.
I agree that it's a reasonable assumption. Ivor Cummings dives into some statistics a bit more, and it isn't so clear that the lockdown had the effect, rather that it might be do to with seasonality and the way the virus spreads. I am interested if anyone has any decent criticism of the numbers he bring up in that video, as they seemed reasonable to me?
That's not true. The flu seasons in 1968, 1957, 1918, and 1889 each killed over a million people worldwide, twice as many as COVID-19 in roughly the same timespan, and that out of a lower total population, and despite lockdowns and quarantines.
(Who is downvoting this simple truth? How is anyone going to discuss this issue if we can't even talk about basic facts?)
But that is corona with social distancing and very widespread working from home, so it isn't really an apples to apples comparison.
And why wouldn't I include 1918 in a list of flu pandemics that killed over a million people?
But even that simple statement of fact is suppressed, even here on HN, because this issue is so heavily politicized.
Youre are going to have the same number of deaths sooner or later as long as the hospitals aren't overwhelmed.
Corona isn't going anywhere.
So I think this proves the argument wrong.
If you consider the other costs you're avoiding, long term issues for sick people, the cost of treating all these people in hospital, the potential for people to get sick with this multiple times (we don't know if you get any immunity by getting sick) then it's even clearer.
Hopefully a vaccine is discovered.
- Virtually no travel in and out of the country (goods still flow though).
- No gatherings > 50 people.
- Keep 2m away from others (except for "bubbles").
- Wash your hands.
- Masks in certain situations (not mandatory for most).
- Various limitations in place as to how businesses operate, e.g. distance between tables in restaurants, physical barriers, cleaning, one way aisles in stores etc etc.
Since I'm not the type or age who goes partying out in crowded bars or to packed concerts that stuff doesn't really bother me personally. Sure, it's no fun, but the alternative seems like a lot less fun. In my (global) company we all switched to wfh when this started and I'm fine with that.
There's lot of room for optimization/improvements. Travel might be ok to locations that have this under control, for example. We might find better solutions for keeping the transmission low. We could decide to clamp down harder and eradicate the virus locally so that we can trade off local restrictions vs. travel restrictions.
It's just between all the bad options here this seems to be the least bad. 2 years of the disease raging through the community until (maybe) there's herd immunity sounds so much worse. I'm pretty sure the Americans who think this is the way to go will change their minds come this fall assuming the current trend continues. Maybe I'm wrong... Let's catch up in December ;)
Even assuming there's never a vaccine or effective cure, this is not true: temporarily reducing the R number (lockdowns, distancing, masks) reduces the overshoot in the total number of people who get the disease (some proportion of which will die). It's the difference between scenario 0 and scenario 1 in the excellent https://ncase.me/covid-19/ playable models.
What I said: "temporarily reducing the R number (lockdowns, distancing, masks) reduces the overshoot in the total number of people who get the disease (some proportion of which will die)."
How are these "completely different"?
It will go back to its normal r value one society returns to normal.
There's no avoiding society returning to normal as people need jobs to pay rent and buy food.
> There's no avoiding society returning to normal as people need jobs to pay rent and buy food.
You've moved the goalposts, but even so, the later sims suggest other things that can be done with less invasive measures like test and trace, wearing masks and social distancing. These don't prevent people doing jobs. They do decrease the number of people who die.
How do you know there's a vaccine on the horizon?
What's a preventable death? Everybody dies eventually, there's no such thing as a preventable death. There's delaying death, but everyone dies. Period.
I will give it my best shot at clarifying:
Preventable refers to what a given society can be expected to manage given its limited resources and given other moral constraints, such as not impinging on people's freedoms unnecessarily. A number of the terms I have used have vague meanings that can't be clarified (not by me at least) within the scope of an HN comment. A good faith interpretation of my statement would be that a society should hold saving lives as its highest priority, as long as this does not cause catastrophic costs or dystopian levels of population control. Some temporary economic costs and some temporary restrictions on certain freedoms should be accepted, I think.
> in this thread people are quite stubborn about interpreting things literally, or misinterpreting them all together.
My complaint is a bit different. I'd say "preventable deaths should be prevented" and people will interpret that as if it said "all". I reply that if I meant "all" I would have said "all".
Your case is a bit different, because you said "all" but did not mean "all".
That's my impression about the Internet as a whole these days...
> The reality is that everyone is prepared to allow others to die for their own convenience.
It may be so. Those people are morally wrong however. This is a deep point that I have insisted on in other comments as well. Casually weighing human life against economic cost is not acceptable in what we might call a civilized society.
> The only difference between believing 70,000 is okay, and 700,000 is not is a gut feeling about how much preventable death is worth it to maintain our living standards.
That is not true. Deaths caused by the regular flu are deeply regrettable and should be prevented as much as possible. If you dig into the data however, you will see that the coronavirus not only kills many more people than the flu, but it also kills people who would otherwise have many more years left to live. Diabetes, a heart condition or age > 65 yrs. shouldn't be death sentences in a modern civilized society.