350k deaths sounds like a huge number, but it's important to take in account how many of those would have died anyway in the next two or three years. Dying at 80 is not the same as dying at 20.
The average YLL for people infected with covid is vastly smaller. You still don't want it, but the actual number is measured in months.
This is one of the worst headlines I've seen recently. The actual study measures years lost only of those that died. By that metric, if I cross the road today and get hit by a bus, the headline would be "crossing the road can cut life span by 40 years or more". There is zero valuable information in that headline.
My only issue with this title is that can- which is wrong and makes the title meaningless. The news is that on average it does cut lifespan of ten years.
Note that's quality-adjusted years of life for people who died with/from/by Covid-19, not of all those infected, because the majority of those infected lose 0 years of life so there's not much information in that metric, either.
So, yes, it does make sense to ask "how many years a person who died of Covid-19 could still enjoy had they not died of Covid-19". Just looking at how many people died of those who were infected simply ignores the fact that many people who die of Covid-19 would otherwise have gone on happily being productive and valuable members of their respective communities - and not shuffling, moaning zombies held together by arcane necromancy, waiting for a gust of wind to disintegrate. After all, while Covid-19 is very dangerous for people over 80, it is also quite dangerous for people over 50 and over 60, and those are ages where many people haven't even retired from their careers.
_____________
[1] Not a direct quote, rather one from memory. I can provide the source if needed, it's a video of an hour-long interview with Ioannidis on youtube.
- 60% of the population get it - the IFR is 0.6% - Everyone who dies loses on average 10 years
it's 60% × 0.6% × 10yr = 0.036yr. That's less than two weeks. How much more are you willing to sacrifice for less than two weeks of lifespan?
“Considering that 70% of those who have died of covid are over 80 years old, quite a few of those 6,000 would have died this year anyway. That makes covid a mere blip in terms of its effect on mortality.”
It’s just empirically true that dying at 80 is different from dying at 20 if you’re assessing the impact of a pandemic. I guess it needs to be pointed out that “different” has a distinct meaning from “way less tragic.”
It is surprising to hear someone who is supposed to care about the bodies and minds of people be such a cowboy when it comes to their lives. If it's not a big deal for people over 80 to die because "quite a few [of them] would have died this year anyway", maybe we should stop admitting people over 80 to hospitals and save the costs of their care? Does that really sound like a sensible proposition?
I am reminded of the Italian scientist, Rita Levi-Montalcini who receivead a Nobel prize in physiology of medicine at 77 and continued to work and make contributions well into her last years of life until she died at 103 [1]. Of course there are exceedingly few such exceptional people, but my point is that it is perfectly possible for someone to enjoy many years of a productive life after their 80'th birthday and perhaps we should be doing more to ensure that this is not such a rare occurrence, rather than assuming that all those old fossils are dying anyway and leave them to it because them young 'uns wants to go out dancin' and drinkin'.
After all, most people plan to grow old anyway. How many of us are comfortable with the idea that, in our old age, priority will be given to "the economy", not to mention the very economy we worked our arse off to keep going while we were young? What is this economy anyway, Moloch?
________
This is miles from what he says. He is arguing for the adjustment of a statistic. He is arguing that Covid has had a minimal affect on the death rate and even smaller when you adjust for how many of the dead would already have been included in the much larger baseline number of expected annual deaths because they are over 80 and X% of those over 80 die each year even with no Covid.
I’m not even sure I agree with him on this or other arguments but it’s clear he values the life of the elderly. As an ER doctor he probably treats many (and many with Covid) each day. I think he’s earned the benefit of the doubt on valuing life, more than most of us here who treat and save no one.
>> “Considering that 70% of those who have died of covid are over 80 years old, quite a few of those 6,000 would have died this year anyway. That makes covid a mere blip in terms of its effect on mortality
My comment:
>> If it's not a big deal for people over 80 to die because "quite a few [of them] would have died this year anyway".
Though I should perhaps not have paraphrased, I believe my comment captures the feeling of the doctor's statement well. Yes, he is making a point about mortality rates. Also, he's making the point that 6,000 people dead is a mere blip on mortality because most of them would be dying anyway. His entire post is a declaration that Covid-19 and the deaths from it are not a big deal because most were very old and on their way out anyway.