Hacker News Reader

Comment by AntonStratiev | Hacker News Reader

Has anyone calculated the value of life that we are saving here?

The Imperial College report had 510,000 dying in the UK under a no-action scenario. Average age lets say 79 as the virus progresses.

510,000 * (82.5-79) * GBP 30,000 (QALY for the NHS) = 53.5 billion pounds based on the funding methodology used for the NHS.

Instead the Uk seems to be willing to throw its entire GDP at this problem, 3 trillion pounds. This seems... completely unjustified.

How can we justify this sort of effort for Coronavirus, but not Climate Change, Obesity, Air Pollution, which will kill many more than COVID-19? Is it just because Coronavirus does it spectacularly in 3 months and all of those other things take decades?

View on HN

I can assure you if tomorrow we woke up and the world was 2 degrees hotter and people were dying left right and centre from it, the same thing would have happened with climate change.

> Average age lets say 79 as the virus progresses

No idea what you're on about. Most people in the UK don't even make it to 79 as is, nevermind with a highly contagious and dangerous virus floating about.

> Instead the Uk seems to be willing to throw its entire GDP at this problem, 3 trillion pounds

Again, what are you on about? The British government has definitely invested (invested, think about that word) a huge sum of our GDP at this problem, but everyone I've spoken to here has been more than happy with this decision even though we're all the fortunate ones that have managed to keep our jobs.

Thousands of people are already dying from this in one small concentrated area in Italy, in a matter of weeks. Shall we just say fuck it and let thousands more die here too? Should the whole world say the same thing? Shall we let the entire economy hit the sort of fucked levels we haven't seen since like WW2?

There are many problems in the world, sure. Not so many of them are as simple as a deadly virus plaguing the planet. You think we can just spend 15% of our GDP in a single year and solve obesity, climate change, and air pollution?

Also shouldn't you be celebrating since this has massively cut down on CO2 emissions and is already changing many people's commuting/working habits, possibly permanently?

> Is it just because Coronavirus does it spectacularly in 3 months and all of those other things take decades?

Yeah something that can fuck humanity in 3 months is definitely worth putting some more thought in to than something that won't be felt for decades away. How can you write a sentence like that and not understand it at the same time?

> I can assure you if tomorrow we woke up and the world was 2 degrees hotter and people were dying left right and centre from it, the same thing would have happened with climate change.

That’s the point he’s making though, we’re overcommitting resources to this problem because we can see it. Once climate change is apparent enough for people to panic, it’ll be too late.

> Thousands of people are already dying from this in one small concentrated area in Italy, in a matter of weeks. Shall we just say fuck it and let thousands more die here too? Should the whole world say the same thing? Shall we let the entire economy hit the sort of fucked levels we haven't seen since like WW2?

Looking at the data from Italy, 98% of the people who died were retired, had pre-existing conditions, and were making no noticeable economic contribution. I’m not saying that economic utility should be what determines someone’s value of life, but the argument that spending trillions of dollars to save the lives of some 85-year-olds “avoids economic disaster” makes no sense. If a world leader were acting in a purely Machiavellian manner, they would let the virus run its course as quickly as possible so productivity could return to normal.

May I remind you that the doctor that does in china was 30 years old. This disease does not just kill old people.

Secondly, let's do this mental experiment, let the disease spread - how do you expect society to function, nevermind economy, if ~5 % of the population is dying of pneumonia and 30% are severely ill. I doubt you'll be able to get served as Starbucks.

It’s quite alarming that no country (as far as I’m aware) is taking a more rational approach towards coronavirus policy.

Any attempt to make an argument of this sort in the current panic is being seen as insensitive and met with outrage (“you don’t care about me/someone’s parents/grandparents”).

If the consensus ends up being that we need to put an 18 month hold on all activity and spend trillions of dollars to extend the lives of a few hundred thousand octogenarians, this will be a mistake that resonates for generations.

Also, the current policy being pursued isn’t a simple “spend x, save y lives” trade-off. An extended period of isolation will not only have economic effects (greater poverty, on average, will reduce life expectancy for many), it’ll also result in a higher incidence of mental health issues and suicide. Children will have their educational development severely disrupted. When the calculus on this policy becomes clear, it could be possible that we end up trading many millions of years of aggregate future life to save a million people who’ve already lived very full lives.

I’m an economist, I get your Cost Benefit Analysis. But I think you’re missing two factors: firstly the psychological cost a community where senicide occurs (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide).

Secondly, the fact that governments are not rational. This UK government is beginning to wake up to the fact that it will lose all public support in coming months and is making belated attempts to shore up some public support.

> This UK government is beginning to wake up to the fact that it will lose all public support in coming months and is making belated attempts to shore up some public support.

lose support over what exactly? are you foreseeing a scandal of some sorts?

There’s going to be huge criticism over mismanagement of the crisis. The criticism will be at two levels: 1. You didn’t act fast enough and lots of people died before their time. 2. When you did act, it was too late and that has ramped up the cost to the economy.

As it is we might be headed towards a yo-yo epidemic. Interesting argument here: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/03/he...

Ps wasn’t sure if you were being sarcastic...

thanks for the reply. interesting link as well.

i was generally curios since some polls indicate growing satisfaction with the ruling Conservative party as well as the PM.

to me it seems that most of the world is in "flattening the curve" mode in order to alleviate stress on their health systems. as such this disease will run it's course and i don't think there will be a scandal in the UK as most countries will be either the same or worse-off. but an inquiry? definitely.

> Any attempt to make an argument of this sort in the current panic is being seen as insensitive and met with outrage (“you don’t care about me/someone’s parents/grandparents”).

IDK, maybe it's just some of us are willing to sacrifice a bit if it means that people don't get turned away from hospitals because they are no longer "economically productive"?

I, for one, would much rather spend a few weeks/months wondering how long I can go without paying my rent as I have no current income than do something like, say, go invade Iraq for a third time.

It's all about perspective methinks...

Can you show me how you calculated the 3 trillion dollar cost? Are you for example counting loans to businesses as if none will be paid back? Are we talking about the economic impact or direct costs or both?

To be clear the UK has 29 million workers who make an average of 28k pounds. If 60% of them are off work and can't work from home paying 80% of that wage to 60% of them would appear to cost about 32 billion pounds per month.

The GDP in 2019 was 2.21T pounds. If we had to pay 80% of 60% of the workforce for 6 months this would cost 195B pounds or 9% of the GDP aprox.

This would be about 400k per life saved which is still a lot of money but honestly would you rather the rich have bigger mansions or your fellow vulnerable citizens be alive?

It is deceptive to claim that the only people dying are 80 year olds. Here is a local that just died in my state aged 42.

https://komonews.com/news/coronavirus/breast-cancer-survivor...

What does a pound or a dollar even represent anymore? They are being printed and given out with little consideration to the impact.

I think we are going to see hyperinflation at some point, particularly if this is dragged on for the 18 months necessary for a vaccine.

Why would I go in to work and stack shelves when the Government will just give me money to sit at home? Why would I even go into the hospital to operate a Ventilator?

The point is that the UK (and many other countries) are essentially 100% oriented around COVID-19, to the extent that the entire resources of the country and its people are dedicated or impacted by it.

Lets reiterate the death rates, from Imperial College's own report:

0-9: 1 in 50,000

10-19: 1 in 16,667

20-29: 1 in 3,333

30-39: 1 in 1,250

40-49: 1 in 667

50-59: 1 in 167

60-69: 1 in 45

70-79: 1 in 20

80+: 1 in 11

The above is slightly less than the risk of death from any cause.

People might not go in to stack shelves but they will go in to save their fellow citizens lives. 1 in 3333 20 somethings and 1 in 1250 30 somethings is still a fuck ton of people. This is basically the base of your economy.

Why does anyone do anything at all? Mate, if everyone sat on their arses all day we wouldn't have been the species that we are.

> The above is slightly less than the risk of death from any cause.

So let's slightly less than double the death rate for anyone that catches this _highly_ contagious disease? Get real mate, come on.

Because all of your numbers are wrong and assume that the person gets the best intensive care possible. In a pandemic like Italy, the healthcare system is overwhelmed and you cant get care an ventilator. Then death rates go up 20x, and yound people start dying too.

You would do those things because collective survival of organised civilisation depends on it

She had an pre-existing condition: compromised immunity after a stage 4 cancer.

Are you ok with killing all such people? These people are all around you in your community. They don't wear a badge to let you know they are vulnerable?

> but not Climate Change, Obesity, Air Pollution,

How does Climate Change directly kills people now? In its most catastrophic failure in the future, it will. But we still have time to fix it.

Obesity is a Choice. I have never heard of people getting Obesity in third world countries where they dont even have enough food.

Air Pollution may shorten our life spans, but its origin also improves our quality of living and lengthen our life expectancy. So it really is a trade off.

I would even go as far as to say if anyone thinks we should put those money for Climate Change and not to save those elderly will be morally wrong. But that is just my personal opinion.

Climate change should be treated as an emergency, we are already on an unavoidable course for misery. It cant be mitigated any more. If you read IPCC report, it assumes massive negative emissions, larger in cost than the entire oil industry we have today.

Preventing climate change is a fantasy. Sont take it from me, watch Bill Gates discuss the topic.

Firstly, is QALY really the right number to use here? We are talking about deaths.

Secondly, yes, 500000 deaths in the short term is much more alarming and destructive than the same in the long term or some time in the future.

Interesting this age thing...I bet older people are all for it, others less so. Might even solve any unfunded pension problem :) but then no age group is safe and everyone is scared. Topped off with the government's job to do the best for all citizens.

> This seems... completely unjustified.

Um, no. Firstly, not everything is about rational economics. No sane and functioning democracy is going to allow 500k people to die if it can stop it.

What's the cut-off where it's okay? Like, you can stop all road traffic deaths, just stop driving. Sure, it might cost you a lot etc, but no sane and functioning democracy is going to allow x people to die if it can stop it, right?

Some of the tens of millions of people under 40 who will have to cover all that debt over the next decades might beg to differ.

You are already covering debt for a lot stupider reasons at least you can console yourself that the money was worth spending.

The point is precisely that views differ on whether the money is worth spending ;)

I think a half a million people are worth saving even if some of them get decades more of life and some only get A single decade more of life.

500,000 people with an average age of 79, the vast majority of whom are in poor health with existing conditions. This is what the data from Italy shows.

Coronavirus is just the last nail in the coffin - it brings forward the deaths that would have occurred over the next 1-2 years into the present. The panic is irrational.

Humans are irrational creatures. They're not robots. This is a feature not a bug.

Damn right and no people who watch 500k people die for nothing is going to tolerate the continued rule of such a government.

> How can we justify this sort of effort for Coronavirus, but not Climate Change, Obesity, Air Pollution

I do think we would react the same way to any of the other issues if you only the side effects were more 'immediate'. Things like climate change do not impact day to day life currently and especially not in western world. It's just too easy to ignore them right now.

The irony of course that land use change drives both increasing zoonotic epidemics and climate change.

http://m.nautil.us/issue/83/intelligence/the-man-who-saw-the...

yes it is, that's how humans think, it is whats it is...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com