Hacker News Reader

I think your point cuts both ways. People can’t appreciate how big the US population is and the normal death rate. Every year around 2.8 million people die in the US from all causes. Around 7,500 people every day. So 450 a day isn’t that incredible of a number given the scale of the population.

When an airplane crashes, the reaction is less about loss of 100-300 lives, but the way in which it happens. If a loaded 747 crashed every day, the negative reaction wouldn’t be primarily because people died (that happens en masse daily), but because the safest mode of travel just became unsafe.

That is a good point. Somewhat similar, we seem to accept in the range of 10,000-11,000 drunk driving deaths a year as fairly normal [1]. Because it is, for the most part, a widely spread out set of events with a few cars crashing by themselves, or into one other car... Yet we still drive everywhere. But if you ask people, someone might tell you that they're more nervous flying (despite statistics clearly showing that per hour of driving, or per hour riding in a 777, you're far more likely to die in the car).

1: https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving

How about 1,300 deaths a day from smoking?

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast...

I consider this somewhat different because people who smoke knowingly do it onto themselves. If people think the benefits outweigh the risks, I don't see that as a "failure" in any way.

Passive smoking is the main cause of harm to _other_ people and is unsurprisingly also the thing that's the most regulated. (Smoking in bars etc.)

At this point, isn't non-mask-wearing somewhat similar? The death risk to vaccinated people (for now) is lower than for getting the flu (even with the flu vaccine). So, the risk is only significant to unvaccinated people, who have had plenty of opportunity to get the shot. So the risk here to those people isn't from themselves (like in smoking), but from others - but the risk is their own choice to take?

It always amazes me how casual people are about traveling at 70+ mph with opposing traffic traveling at similar speeds, sometimes less than 4 feet to your left with no protection other than a few inches of paint. There are some places that you could die just from losing focus for less than a second.

USA roads are seriously scary. It's no small wonder that drunk drivers kill so many people.

I don't think "the safest mode of travel just became unsafe" is really what is going on. If 400 people die in a single incident, it doesn't matter so much what people's association of how safe what they are doing is. If that many die in a fire, or a ship sinking, or a flood, or whatever.... the reason we care is because it is a singular event.

Agree. To add, 450 individuals dying separately from different causes in different places is not as newsworthy as 450 people dying in one event in one place in spectacular fashion.

You could the logic of broken precedent of assumed safety to people shopping in a grocery store and contracting Covid. What's safer than buying groceries or hanging out at a friend's BBQ? No one was doing anything ostensibly dangerous or out of the ordinary.

The only thing that makes sense is if we admit that there is a deliberate attempt to deprogram the masses and politicize science. People are indifferent because they're instructed to be on a daily basis by the talking heads.

> What changed? It's the same number of dead people, right?

Aside from general aviation concerns, that 747-400 will have young families, infants and children on board, whereas exposing everyone on that 747-400 to COVID-19 would mostly result in the deaths of the elderly and the infirm.

If we had an outbreak of Spanish flu with the same overall death rate it would not be as bad. It would be much worse. The deaths of the young who have their whole life ahead of them is a much worse outcome than someone who statistically would be dead anyway from old age or other disease in a few years.

This is intuitively understandable to every human being. If a 95 year old dies in their sleep we mourn them but think "wow, they made it to 95!". If an infant dies in their sleep it's a tragedy.

I genuinely don't understand why everyone has insisted on talking about COVID-19 in terms of absolute deaths. For everything else like heart disease etc. we talk about statistically "losing X years of life".

The median age of death for COVID-19 has been at or above the statistical life expectancy.

In the worst case we could have an outbreak of another strain of Coronavirus next year that'll kill 1/2 as many as COVID-19, but disproportionately target those under 10 years of age. Because of this nonsensical messaging people will think "oh, only half as bad as COVID-19".

Early on, I read that even though people who die of covid are typically old, they have plenty of time left. E.g. an 85 year old dies, who would be expected to live 10 more years.

Median age of COVID deaths here in the UK is 83[1]. Life expectancy is 81.

1: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/fre...

Life expectancy for an 83 year old is 90 (male) or 91 (female):

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...

That study only compared age at death to life expectancy at that age. Since those who die from covid are generally in much poorer health than average, the real number is somewhere much lower than that, although I’m sure finding a way to estimate it would be pretty difficult.

> I genuinely don't understand why everyone has insisted on talking about COVID-19 in terms of absolute deaths. For everything else like heart disease etc. we talk about statistically "losing X years of life".

We do this because people misunderstand the "losing x years of life" statistics...

> The median age of death for COVID-19 has been at or above the statistical life expectancy.

...just like you've done here.

https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/5-75

> Results: Using the standard WHO life tables, YLL per COVID-19 death was 14 for men and 12 for women. After adjustment for number and type of LTCs, the mean YLL was slightly lower, but remained high (11.6 and 9.4 years for men and women, respectively). The number and type of LTCs led to wide variability in the estimated YLL at a given age (e.g. at ≥80 years, YLL was >10 years for people with 0 LTCs, and <3 years for people with ≥6).

> Conclusions: Deaths from COVID-19 represent a substantial burden in terms of per-person YLL, more than a decade, even after adjusting for the typical number and type of LTCs found in people dying of COVID-19. The extent of multimorbidity heavily influences the estimated YLL at a given age. More comprehensive and standardised collection of data (including LTC type, severity, and potential confounders such as socioeconomic-deprivation and care-home status) is needed to optimise YLL estimates for specific populations, and to understand the global burden of COVID-19, and guide policy-making and interventions.

> For everything else like heart disease etc. we talk about statistically "losing X years of life".

> We do this because people misunderstand the "losing x years of life" statistics...

It makes sense, but this is honestly the first time I've heard anything expressed this way. Perhaps geographical differences.

What I thought you were going to say was what's been annoying the hell out of me all pandemic: no shit [very populous country] has massively higher #new infections and #deaths than [tiny country]..

There's just no value in it beyond internal comparisons over time (which you could do with any externally relevant relative measure too), but that won't stop the press of course! Absolute numbers are bigger!

(Perhaps one day they'll work out they could use it to their advantage - '#UK deaths per billion'...)

> ...just like you've done here.

For what it's worth I did not mean to imply a relationship between the average median life expectancy for the population as a whole and the life expediency of a person who's reached that age.

As you point out doing so would be a statistical fallacy. E.g. someone who's reached the age of 5 has already made it "past" infant mortality, and therefore has a higher life expectancy than a newborn.

I was using it as a shorthand to reference how lopsided the age distribution of COVID-19 deaths is. We can quibble over whether an 80 year old who's died from it would have lived an extra 0, 1, 5, 10 years.

But even if you were to completely misunderstand how life expectancy works, you'd be a lot more accurate than the GP's reference to a 747 crashing into a mountain, since that example implies deaths from a random sample of the population. Now instead of being off by 5-10 years you're off by many decades.

COVID largely impacted only the geriatric and obese. If the airplane were full of women and children then your analogy would be more poignant.

Edit: interesting note … if you were to take the number of deaths in the Second World War that would amount to 86 fully loaded 747 aircraft flying into the side of a mountain per day for six years.

And I believe that humans are so closed off from reality and don't care about others so much the point that they don't realize how little of a rate that is compared to everything else. We got people claiming they almost died from covid. Then testing negative realizing that they just got normal flu, holy crap normal flu is so bad it can make you lose weight? Yes idiot.

I just spent about 3 months non-stop hospital visits for the past year and a half for open reduction internal fixation multiple times. The hospital was empty like literally the lights are out in this hallway I have to find the light switch and turn it on so that I can go down to the X-ray room. This is a city of 300,000 with an empty hospital. Yet they claim it's full when all 35 covid beds are taken. I walked all around the hospital hoax fake are the first words that came to my mind.

We should probably change how it is talked about then, because there is a fairly constant flow of medical reports showing that even young who catch Covid and have minimal symptoms actually have severe hidden internal organ damage which is predicted to result in a generation with heart and lung problems in the next couple of decades.

I think it has a lot to do with expectations and how they need to change in light of such an event.

In 2017 there were no commercial passenger jet deaths - that's how amazingly safe these machines are. Any such crash casts doubt on this idea.

Imagine the difference between "literally perfectly safe" and "can (rarely) cause death".

Same with events like 9/11 - no one going to work that day expected to die like this just hours later.

Pneumonia has a death rate of up to 10% among hospitalized patients(mostly older folks), so people who drop off their parent at the hospital are often already mentally preparing for the worst.

well, not literally perfectly safe. just not enough data

>"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." – Josef Stalin

not necessarily because humans don't care, but simply because most humans don't usually reason with numbers that large. I can understand the approximate size and volume of a dozen eggs. I can't for a million unless you show me an acre stacked with them. Death tolls are similar.