Hacker News Reader

Comment by weggooi | Hacker News Reader

Estimates are that, if governments do nothing to combat Covid 19, then the life expectancy of the whole population will be reduced by a mere 20 days.[1]

Sacrificing 4 months of exercise, meaningful conversation, sex and other basic human needs is really not worth it.

[1] For example 13.26 million QALYs divided by the US population https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/another-covid-cost-ben...

View on HN

The euphemism of “Life expectancy of the whole population” is disguising that you’re saying 200k-1.7 million deaths is worth you not having to stay home for 4 months. This isn’t even factoring in the millions who will suffer severe cases needing hospitalization and suffering permanent lung damage but won’t die.

Secondly, the article you linked has several arguments against your own conclusion. For example, that many will suffer permanent lung damage, a significant multiple of the number of people who will die will be seriously ill and need hospitalization, and that this cost-benefit analysis overvalues the lives of the young over the old.

There are alternatives to locking the whole population down: For example the Imperial College study predicts less deaths if only the 70+ population is locked down.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

Also look at page 10: If you lockdown for only 5 months, the virus just comes back and still kills 1 in 500 people.

If you want to minimize the deaths, the study suggests that you need 400+ days of lockdowns over a 2 year period.

All of those things are possible while maintaining social distancing. If you are young, then 4 months is whatever, you have plenty of time left in your life.

You are right, the cost/benefit is not there if you care only for yourself and you are not someone who is immune-compromised. The ask is that you consider other people (do you have any family or friends who could die from this?) and even if you have mild or no symptoms, you could act as a carrier that infects other people and may even be responsible for the disease that kills them.

When I was in China, I called my mom every day. But she was still lonely.

If teleconferencing was a perfect substitute for face to face meetings, why does the world spend so much every year on office space, commuting to work, hotels, flights etc. ?

I said "and other basic human needs". The article mentioned people that can no longer escape abusive relationships. There's also children who will not see both parents during the lockdown because they are separated.

(Btw, I'm personally sticking 100% to the rules of the lockdown.

I'm just saying the lockdown is interfering with human nature and will become unenforceable)

> the life expectancy of the whole population will be reduced by a mere 20 days

It's not evenly distributed, though.

And that load is taken almost entirely by the elderly (50+) population. Who don't matter? Are not worth it?

They vote it turns out, so no we're not going to see a politician sacrificing them any time soon.

actually the median age of death is 80, for some more accurate perspective. Generally speaking I would consider myself lucky to live to that age and greedy if I thought that others should make major sacrifices so I could live slightly beyond it.

Actually the unacceptable rise in mortality begins around 55. Who cares the median age, for something that's so severe? That's a spurious argument.

"The median age of those executed by firing squad was 80, so why are you whining?"

So, forget slowing the epidemic, screw the healthcare workers that'll get the brunt of the caseloads, and the overloaded hospitals, screw the ones who will die in excess of what we can actually prevent, just because you feel it's inconvenient.

Thanks for self-identifying. I'll be sure to exclude you from anything I can think of, since you're willing to sacrifice random strangers for your own comfort.

> since you're willing to sacrifice random strangers for your own comfort

Come on, so are you, and so is everybody. Are you ready to not have modern life because traffic deaths of random strangers are necessarily part of the package?

This whole situation turns this site into Twitter, another corona victim.

Wow. You seriously think I'm that selfish? Or that I'm any less serious about wanting better for everyone even when it's not on this site? I'm not exactly deprived in my 95 percent home situation, but yes I'll give up whatever i need to if friends family and strangers everywhere survive because of what we do.

> I'll give up whatever i need to if friends family and strangers everywhere survive because of what we do.

So a homestead, amish-style, it is?

I do understand the sentiment, but we (as a society and individually) absolutely accept that strangers will die because of how we (as a society and individually) live. We just don't like to speak or think about it, because it's not compatible with our self-image as selfless, hyper-moral beings. But given the choice between a super market nearby and zero traffic deaths in the country, we all know which on we will choose.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com