Reply With Quote
It is 41.4 million. I made a copy error.
so out of those, I wonder what the percentage of risk of death is? So at what point does the world promote lockdowns to hypothetically help these people?
Then you would have to determine how many lost their job to do this.
So if the number that the government is protecting, and remember they haven't lost their job, is less than those who have been negatively effected, is this logical.
Say 2 million lives were saved but 30 million ruined. Is the lockdown logical? Both sides you are choosing someone's life over anothers life...
It is 41.4 million. I made a copy error.
IMO yes.
Answer your own question.
Say 2 million lives were saved but 30 million ruined. Is the lockdown logical?
Yes or no.
Thats fine, the premise of my argument isn't going to change. You would still need to figure cost of a life, even though the argument for shutdown seems to downplay this fact.
how did your sister respond?
OK, how much are 2 million lives worth then?
I can't actually say exactly -- your hypothetical was easy for me -- but you seem to have it down to a science.
How much are 2 million American lives worth?
And thats the discussion that needs to take place. Otherwise you are just going to go round and round of blaming. A goal has to be set out of that conversation.
So start the discussion--
How much are 2 million American lives worth?
Right. Everyone avoids the conversation. But its ultimately what the decisions have been based upon. At first they wanted to save lives, now they want to go back and stop ruining lives. The scary thing will be of they continue to go back and forth.
There is no goal because there is no real discussion. It's political bull which all the government is guilty of.
You forgot your links.
Let's follow. Guessing you got it from reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/COVID19/com...lity_risk_for/
Which gets it from here:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....05.20054361v2
Population-level COVID-19 mortality risk for non-elderly individuals overall and for non-
elderly individuals without underlying diseases in pandemic epicenters
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
Still appears to be a reasonably well done paper, albeit on some incomplete data, as a lot of things are at this stage. Seems to dovetail with other data.
Points out that most deaths are in teh 40+ range.
Economically though, people are in their peak earning years 40-55 or so. Probably good for the follow up cohorts as slots in organizations need to be filled.
Ok, start the conversation.
How much are 2 million American lives worth to you?
I dont know. If you were 80 and had a preexisting condition that put you at risk would you want your last days to be in hiding or would you want to be out living?
I think that this conversation is hard because dearh is extremely taboo to discuss.
At the end of my life I would want to live with restrictions or a por quality of life. But others may want to live as long as they can no matter their quality of life.
Oh, well when you figure it out let everyone know. You have a lot more time than the policymakers did to decide.
I just did.
You just said you didn't know. That means you don't have it figured out.
30 million people with ruined lives will live to recover their economic livelihoods.
Lose 2 million people, you lose every single dollar they would have contributed for every single day of their lives. If you want to get down to the simple economics.
Underlying question, is why does this have to ruin 30,000,000 lives?
Seems to me that any economic system that is so fragile for 30,000,000 has a whole lot of endemic problems.
If tens of millions of people can't afford to miss a few paychecks before becoming homeless or bankrupt, that is a ty system IMO.
The first part is speculation just like lives saved or if a person died of or with covid. You can't say that they will or will not get their livelihood back at all. You also don't take into account those people have families. So the impact on their life could be impacted for years as well.
Many lives weren't going swimmingly before this. Now it's a choice between staying home and hopefully getting their UBI, or going back to work at the risk of their health and/or family's for that meager check. It isn't so black and white.
Not that the economy would be doing all that well anyway if 2 million die in a short period of time.
And again, you're blaming if people can't afford to miss a few paychecks.... not their fault..
However obesity is completely someone's fault. Which are probably many of those in your numbers of preexisting conditions. So the argument could easily be that since these prexisintg conditions are self inflicted why do people who live healthy have to be lockeddown?
Well stated.
There is actually an answer to that. the "standard life" value. Depends greatly on age though.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/8355...=1587652786263
2,000,000*10,000,000 = 20,000,000,000,000MALONE: So, to do this math, we start with the current - but pre-coronavirus - value of a life. And, according to the Department of Transportation and the CDC and a bunch of other government agencies, this number is now around $10 million.
2019 US GDP = 21,000,000,000,000
There are more economic formulas that address value and cost of life as well . People don't like those though because well death is a touchy subject for many.
I am over 40. I can tell you the impact of me losing my job is less than me dying on my family, economically.
I can get another job. They would have a hard time replacing my income 100% for the remainder of my natural working life. This discounts the potential for emotional damage to future economic activity as well, which is also measureably worse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
