I admit I'm the morbid one in the group, memento mori and all. But I think the real stat we should track is years of lost life expectancy. That's the only statistic that makes sense when doing cross disease examinations. Not speaking specifically about covid, but more generally, something which primarily kills young people is much bigger deal than something which primarily kills old people.
I think that the main obstacle to this approach is that people instinctively think cross-sectionally rather than longitudinally. When you say "kills young people" and "kills old people", listeners focus on 2021. A young person is somebody born in 2000 and an old person is somebody-else, born in 1940. That is cross-sectional thinking, with 2021 as the date of the cross section.
But the real issue is that we nearly all live to grow old and get to experience both sides of the issue. Someone born in 2000 is likely to live until 2080. They will probably see a different respiratory virus going round then; it may even be what kills them.
So what would you personally prefer? The pro-lockdown approach trades losing a year out of your twenties to lock downs, in return for some action (perhaps ineffective, perhaps unnecessary) to ensure that you survive the plague of 2080 and get to live a few years longer.
The anti-lockdown approach makes the opposite trade-off. It is not really young versus old; it is now versus later.
I'm getting old and rather dreading later. I would prefer that society prioritize letting the young get on with their lives, education, dating, etc. and if I lose some poor quality care-home years, well, I've seen my grandparents and parents get old and frail, and I'd rather not dwell on the details of what I'm dreading.
If young people want to argue for the anti-lockdown trade-off, if they claim that in general young people shouldn't be locked down in the hope of protecting the elderly and they will accept their fate gracefully when they get old, well, I would think them wise beyond their years.
As I understand it this intergenerational contract used to be quite strong as people would see that previous generations invested in them and as a pay it forward sort of mechanism, they would in turn pay it forward to generations that proceed them .
I suppose there was some "take care of me when I'm old" in the intergenerational contract too, but I understood that as secondary to the propagation aspect...
Not to my father, who is in his late 60s and the most at-risk member of the family, and who has been more opposed to the lockdowns than any of us.
His calculation is that at some point - for the good of the family, long-term - the economic damage and delayed social development of his grandchildren outweigh his personal safety.
I have encountered very few older people who don't also think this way.
It makes sense if we consider the possibility of novel life experiences to be an important value of how we live life. If you've made it to 60 (a not uncommon life expectancy), you've had a chance to travel, have children, live through many different life occasions, etc. If you're 20, you've barely had two years as a legal adult where you could make something of your life. It has little to do with economic productivity.
It's not about "usefulness", it's that saving the life of a young person produces a larger benefit in terms of expected future years of life. Take the extreme case: if a building is on fire and you can only rescue one person, would you be indifferent between saving the life of a 10 year old child versus a 90 year old with terminal cancer?
1. You get killed at 20.
2. You get killed at 60.
Which option would you choose?