Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>On 1), what do you consider "not that serious"?

Death rates, hospitalization rates, etc.

As mentioned before, 20% of NY deaths are nursing home patients. 37% are 80 or older.

I'm on mobile and a bit lazy, but check out death rates for the flu in younger populations and compare them to this virus. The virus has a higher mortality rate but not enough to be worth worrying about in younger populations.

>Regarding the cost-benefit discussion, my perspective is that people only want to discuss the downsides from a reduced economy.

While keeping the benefits in mind is an important part of this analysis, the fact is the pre-quarantine deaths were already accepted as "worth it" given that there was no political will to reduce them.

But yes, we should tally the reduction in deaths, pollution, etc.



So 13k deaths in NY (so far) are under 80 years old. That sounds pretty dangerous to me.

Comparison to the flu could indicate that we underindex on all these other causes of death. It doesn't make those death numbers some magical line where now it's worth it, because Coronavirus deaths in 2 months equal annual flu deaths.


How many under 65? (I know the answer, I'm obviously asking very intentionally/rhetorically)


If you're adding everything up, please don't omit the costs of long-term disability from COVID19-related lung damage. That swings the numbers completely.

If it were just 3.6% of the US population dying, I would understand the economic versus public health argument. It comes down to values at that point: how much is a human life worth?

But that changes completely when you consider how many people we'll either need to support for decades, or who will have lower economic output. Those costs get astronomical, and at least by my ballpark estimates, align public health with economic outcomes completely.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: