Because old people are worth less than children?

Yes but not in the way you're implying.

A child dying robs them and the world of 60+ years of human life. An 80 year old dying of COVID-19 was not going to live much longer anyway, so the loss is less severe. Old people have already had the opportunity to live a "full" life.

Imagine two societies – one where a disease kills 50% of < 10s every year, and another that kills 50% of > 70s every year. Which society would do better? Which society would you rather live in?

In the US, more people in the 55-74 age range have died than the 85+. Those are people who are taking care of grand children, or are still working. These are people that society has spent decades making fully functioning parts of society. A child has had none of that investment.

A society of just children wouldn't work, just as a society without wouldn't work.

Is your goal to just be as misleading as possible in this conversation?

Yes, of course more 55-74s have died – there are far, far more of them than there are >85s. Normalized, COVID is far more lethal (8x more lethal) for >85s than for your range. Here's the mortality rates:

55-74: 0.28%

85+: 2.5%

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

How in any way is that misleading?

The actual numbers are more representative than lethality percentages when we're talking about contribution to society.

What's more representative is "life years lost", and malaria wins there (we've lost many more years to it).

How do you calculate that in an area of the world with the highest rate of child mortality?

Same as in any other area, assume malaria isn't killing babies and do the math. Your question sounds rhetorical but is too simple to answer, so I'm confused.

My anecdotal observation is that is a position that a majority of old people themselves take, at least nominally.

Frankly, yes. It sounds cold hearted but many of the COVID deaths were people who were going to die in the next 24 months anyway.

> The average years of life lost per death is 16 years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-83040-3

And, dismissing the death of someone by saying "they were going to die soon anyway, so what" is disgusting.

>And, dismissing the death of someone by saying "they were going to die soon anyway, so what" is disgusting.

It may be "disgusting" - but it's also statistics

It was sad when my grandfather died a couple years ago at 87 - but not exactly "unexpected"

Compare that to friends who lost their 18-year-old daughter before she graduated high school

Which one is shocking? Which one "hurts more"?

Deaths rates follow a bathtub curve - ultimately leading to a 100% mortality rate (ie, everyone dies eventually)

If you have to choose between saving a 5-year-old and an 85-year-old, the "smart money" says "save the kid"

If you don't have to choose, then by all means - save both

But that's not how economics works: choices must be made

In a QALY sense, yeah. The most valuable to society are the workforce but children are almost as valuable.

My parents are 60+ yr old surgeons. They work during the pandemic not because they have to. It's because you run the QALYs and the morality is clear. You participate or make way.