When will the SIP end?
- Thread starter Beanzy
- Start date
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
We willingly ask our young men and women to put themselves in harms way for our country in times of war, but now we're unwilling to put the oldest among us in harms way for our country in a time of war against a virus. Seems very hypocritical to me. To be willing to send 21 year olds off to war, but be unwilling to sacrifice for them so they can get an education, have a job opportunity, or just live their lives. There has to be a balance and our leadership needs to find it fast. Indefinite SIP is not a plan.
Not a hypocritical unless you send the young men and women to way without any tools. You know guns, cannons, things to defend themselves. SIP is the tool to protect the elders and those at risk.
Lets hope you can say we overreacted.
Attachments
-
time.jpg
GAJ
Well-known member
18-49 is the largest group affected up here in Sonoma County.
Caddywumpus
4N631
This is a massive overreaction
ThumperX
Well-known member
And many over 60 already put their lives on the line for the country you’re asking them to do it again so some jowly, fat, misogynistic, homophobic, billionaire gets his cut? How about we all calm down, act like adults and not privileged little twats. Then we might be able to start going about our business.
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
Seriously, learn some reading comprehension and how not to jump to the extreme conclusion. Nowhere did I say we should have or should do nothing. Do you folks actually read other people's posts or just have talking points and memes ready to cut and paste?
Archimedes
Fire Watcher
Again, where the fuck did I say that? I don't know any 21 year old college students/grads that fit that description...
On a more positive note, Trump's comments today were at least a step in the right direction about outlining some form of a real path forward, rather than just more vague, 'we're going to listen to the scientists and start opening things up when I say that we've met these 18 very vague criteria..., including complete eradication of the coronavirus...oh and, don't forget, I feel your pain...remember that come election time!'
ctwo
Merely Rhetorical
Last edited:
the y-axis should be in "new positive tests" not new cases to be a little more apt. the only thing that ramped up was testing capability. depending on who's science you believe, 10-50% of Californians have already been exposed to it and most of them survived.
I think we'll find out in the next year or two if this was the right call when we measure the economic impact, change in suicide rates, change in homicide/murders/etc. rates, etc. My prediction is that the number of deaths will be very close in the US.
In a much colder and unempathetic calculation, you could measure the economic damage done currently and weigh them against the life insurance estimates of the lives that would have been lost once we have the data to establish a valid model. IE: 5 trillion in damages for 500000 deaths would be about 10million per life, which would be a bad trade economically.
I think we'll find out in the next year or two if this was the right call when we measure the economic impact, change in suicide rates, change in homicide/murders/etc. rates, etc. My prediction is that the number of deaths will be very close in the US.
In a much colder and unempathetic calculation, you could measure the economic damage done currently and weigh them against the life insurance estimates of the lives that would have been lost once we have the data to establish a valid model. IE: 5 trillion in damages for 500000 deaths would be about 10million per life, which would be a bad trade economically.
Yakoo752
USN
Yakoo752
USN
benefit-cost analysis
there are plenty out there on the scope of human life
EPA has done one and they are specific in that
The EPA does not place a dollar value on individual lives. Rather, when conducting a benefit-cost analysis of new environmental policies, the Agency uses estimates of how much people are willing to pay for small reductions in their risks of dying from adverse health conditions that may be caused by environmental pollution.
In the scientific literature, these estimates of willingness to pay for small reductions in mortality risks are often referred to as the "value of a statistical life.” This is because these values are typically reported in units that match the aggregate dollar amount that a large group of people would be willing to pay for a reduction in their individual risks of dying in a year, such that we would expect one fewer death among the group during that year on average. This is best explained by way of an example. Suppose each person in a sample of 100,000 people were asked how much he or she would be willing to pay for a reduction in their individual risk of dying of 1 in 100,000, or 0.001%, over the next year. Since this reduction in risk would mean that we would expect one fewer death among the sample of 100,000 people over the next year on average, this is sometimes described as "one statistical life saved.” Now suppose that the average response to this hypothetical question was $100. Then the total dollar amount that the group would be willing to pay to save one statistical life in a year would be $100 per person × 100,000 people, or $10 million. This is what is meant by the "value of a statistical life.” Importantly, this is not an estimate of how much money any single individual or group would be willing to pay to prevent the certain death of any particular person.
A lot of people use this as a proxy to contribution of human life.
FDA says it very differently and it's about 8M
there are plenty out there on the scope of human life
EPA has done one and they are specific in that
The EPA does not place a dollar value on individual lives. Rather, when conducting a benefit-cost analysis of new environmental policies, the Agency uses estimates of how much people are willing to pay for small reductions in their risks of dying from adverse health conditions that may be caused by environmental pollution.
In the scientific literature, these estimates of willingness to pay for small reductions in mortality risks are often referred to as the "value of a statistical life.” This is because these values are typically reported in units that match the aggregate dollar amount that a large group of people would be willing to pay for a reduction in their individual risks of dying in a year, such that we would expect one fewer death among the group during that year on average. This is best explained by way of an example. Suppose each person in a sample of 100,000 people were asked how much he or she would be willing to pay for a reduction in their individual risk of dying of 1 in 100,000, or 0.001%, over the next year. Since this reduction in risk would mean that we would expect one fewer death among the sample of 100,000 people over the next year on average, this is sometimes described as "one statistical life saved.” Now suppose that the average response to this hypothetical question was $100. Then the total dollar amount that the group would be willing to pay to save one statistical life in a year would be $100 per person × 100,000 people, or $10 million. This is what is meant by the "value of a statistical life.” Importantly, this is not an estimate of how much money any single individual or group would be willing to pay to prevent the certain death of any particular person.
A lot of people use this as a proxy to contribution of human life.
FDA says it very differently and it's about 8M
Last edited:
i see, i think fundamentally we agree, with the key contention being who's table we use (the EPA or an actuary's) since the majority of the dead will not be the average person, and instead be older people who are less dollars on an actuarial table. i've seen payouts for a handful of life insurance policies and they are way less than 8M lol
ctwo
Merely Rhetorical
You mean how much they are willing to charge?
Yakoo752
USN
yeah, for sure. But we're spit balling data here so I'm just providing a counter point.
I don't think age will be the metric to lower the bar, sadly... it will be race.
no, it's actually much higher then most others. It's an interesting way to look at it though.
are you thinking that a large portion of the COVID deaths will be non-white people?
Coincidentally, I listened to a podcast yesterday with a theory on why SARS1 and COVID-19 targets darker skinned people outside of economics. Melanin blocks production of vitaminD which has a role in ACE2 function which can have a cascading effect resulting in ARDS/lung damage.
Coincidentally, I listened to a podcast yesterday with a theory on why SARS1 and COVID-19 targets darker skinned people outside of economics. Melanin blocks production of vitaminD which has a role in ACE2 function which can have a cascading effect resulting in ARDS/lung damage.
Yakoo752
USN
Snaggy has covered it elsewhere. Specifically in regards to ACE2
I talk to my customers (1/2 the hospital market) all day long. It's a feel I get from them. Amongst other things.
Median death age is coming in just under 60. These people still have quite a bit to contribute.
I talk to my customers (1/2 the hospital market) all day long. It's a feel I get from them. Amongst other things.
Median death age is coming in just under 60. These people still have quite a bit to contribute.
Last edited:
Climber
Well-known member
This could be a game changer....
Virus vaccine may be ready for mass production by autumn, Oxford professor says
Virus vaccine may be ready for mass production by autumn, Oxford professor says