Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We need to talk about the costs of preserving the lives of the elderly.
Everything must be weighed in the balance. Nothing should be pursued single-mindedly, without consideration of anything else.
Now that we have more data, we understand that the very elderly and those prone to respiratory illness are most at risk of dying from COVID-19. It is a small segment of the population.
Everyone else in society is sacrificing so much to extend their lives. I don't use the word "save" because those who are "saved" will probably die within five years anyways.
The humanitarian and economic interests must be balanced, especially when the gains of the few are bourne by the sacrifices of the many.
Developed societies all over the world spend incredible amounts of money on medical care for the very elderly, with very little effect. This gerontocracy is especially prevalent in western Europe and places like Italy, where young people endure persistently high unemployment to protect the jobs of older workers, and pay high taxes to care for the elderly. The current lockdown takes this to another level.
The seniority system is fair if you get to have senior status at some point. But it is panning out that young people will never enjoy the privileges that the elderly currently enjoy. This is an unfair system.
We have finite wealth. Everyone dies. Where do we strike the balance?
You think this entire thing is only about old people? Only about old people so old they will live only a few more months or years? What cave have you been living in?
Latest numbers from Canada show 3% of people in ICU are under 40, in Italy it was around 12%.
What do you think will happen when there is no ICU space and people need it? That is right, they drop dead waiting. It is not only space, but supplies and personnel.
This is why local governments everywhere have been shutting things down, specifically places where lot of people gather, so we can slow the spread of the virus, so the medical system can absorb the influx of patients.
There have been plenty of younger people and I would say "not very old" old people with no issues who have died from this.
You think this entire thing is only about old people? Only about old people so old they will live only a few more months or years? What cave have you been living in?
Latest numbers from Canada show 3% of people in ICU are under 40, in Italy it was around 12%.
What do you think will happen when there is no ICU space and people need it? That is right, they drop dead waiting. It is not only space, but supplies and personnel.
This is why local governments everywhere have been shutting things down, specifically places where lot of people gather, so we can slow the spread of the virus, so the medical system can absorb the influx of patients.
There have been plenty of younger people and I would say "not very old" old people with no issues who have died from this.
In Italy as of March 12, the average age of those who died was 81. At the time there had been only two deaths of those under the age of 50. This squares with numbers observed in China.
If you have evidence that the relative risk of death between age cohorts changes with decreasing access to hospitalization, I would be interested to see it. I don't see how it could change much from the current risk profile which is heavily weighted towards the very elderly.
There's a lot of over the top dramatization here. The economic cost of our response to this virus is minimal in the long run. Don't let short-term market change get to you. It is short-term and nothing more... and the rebound before it gets too bad.
You must stop speculating and just look at what we actually know:
- Balance sheets are healthy.
- The challenges that businesses see are cashflow. That's not a hard problem to solve.
- The Fed has already backstopped tightening of not just treasuries, but all government bonds.
- Depression is extremely unlikely. So unlikely that it's not even considered as a risk by economists.
- Recession is most likely and wouldn't be as impactful as a depression.
- Regarding access to food, you make a good point. Looking at the economics, in a depression scenario, access to food would be isolated and would not impact 1% of the population across the board. Those isolated areas have existing issues today and they are known. To alleviate your correct concern, we (and others that are well off) should make sure distribution of food to people without it is improved.
- We've been at worse risk, economically, and come back profoundly strong. We'll do it again.
- It's too early to fully understand the impact of the virus, but the Trump Administration, Congress, Doctors, and Scientists agree that there's a reason to have concern and act appropriately. It's already stressing out infrastructure in certain areas.
Times like these it's important to be rational. Pushing unnecessary over-dramatizing of fear of economic collapse is unwarranted and unfruitful.
The value of a statistical life is something around $5 million, even when you control for diminishing quality of life with age. Given that epidemiological models predict 1-2 million deaths if we lift restrictions, you're looking at around $10 trillion dollars. That's a very rough quantitative guess at the dollar amount the US government should spend in order to avert the worst case scenario. Economists make these decisions all the time when they calculate the cost of raising speed limits for example.
I do think the majority of the population wishes to see their parents and grandparents not die. If you asked people how much they would pay in order to save an elderly relative or parents life, it would probably be more than the cost incurred by job loss for a few months. Though, I have no data on this.
Certainly, I hope that nobody has to experience a loved one passing away from this virus.
You think this entire thing is only about old people? Only about old people so old they will live only a few more months or years? What cave have you been living in?
Latest numbers from Canada show 3% of people in ICU are under 40...
You do understand that 3% is a low number? This is definitely hitting older people much harder than younger ones. Isolating seniors while letting young people work to keep the economy going probably would have been the better strategy.
The value of a statistical life is something around $5 million, even when you control for diminishing quality of life with age. Given that epidemiological models predict 1-2 million deaths if we lift restrictions, you're looking at around $10 trillion dollars. That's a very rough quantitative guess at the dollar amount the US government should spend in order to avert the worst case scenario. Economists make these decisions all the time when they calculate the cost of raising speed limits for example.
You don't need $10 trillion to make 1 billion reusable masks for America and force everyone to wear one.
The value of a statistical life is something around $5 million, even when you control for diminishing quality of life with age. Given that epidemiological models predict 1-2 million deaths if we lift restrictions, you're looking at around $10 trillion dollars. That's a very rough quantitative guess at the dollar amount the US government should spend in order to avert the worst case scenario. Economists make these decisions all the time when they calculate the cost of raising speed limits for example.
I am assuming $5 million is the value of a statistical life, not a statistical life event.
Because the $2 trillion is over and above everything else we would already be spending on elder care. We issued new debt; we did not reroute money from Medicare.
Quote:
I do think the majority of the population wishes to see their parents and grandparents not die. If you asked people how much they would pay in order to save an elderly relative or parents life, it would probably be more than the cost incurred by job loss for a few months. Though, I have no data on this.
How much they would be willing to pay personally, or how much they would be willing to pay into a social insurance scheme? The answers will be different.
{shrug} yet another thread about letting the old folks die so that young folks can live a life that was created for them by those same old folks. Nothing greedy about that. No sir, nothing at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
