Hacker News Reader

Comment by ldrndll | Hacker News Reader

Care to cite any stats supporting your assertion that a maximum of 2% of the population would die? During periods where the healthcare system has been overloaded the mortality rates have been many multiples of that during times when healthcare is provided at an appropriate level.

What’s more, do you have any reasonable figures to suggest why letting a percentage or more of the population die unnecessarily, consigning even larger numbers to long-term health problems and so forth is somehow a good choice?

View on HN

> During periods where the healthcare system has been overloaded the mortality rates have been many multiples of that during times when healthcare is provided at an appropriate level.

If you ask people to cite statistics for their claims, you should also do so for your claims such as this one.

I think it’s appropriate to ask for stats for suggestions that run counter to accepted wisdom. That doesn’t put the onus on me to provide evidence of generally accepted facts. Suggesting that we should let the virus run wild through the population is contrary to guidance from the WHO, any number of national health organisations, etc. So no, I don’t feel the need to cite statistics for my position, as it’s not the novel one.

It is an axiom of healthcare that outcomes suffer in an overburdened healthcare system, and readily apparent why that is the case. That said, for those too lazy to look, here’s literally the top result for me when googling terms related to this: https://www.kabc.com/news/covid-19-mortality-rates-rise-as-h...

> What’s more, do you have any reasonable figures to suggest why letting a percentage or more of the population die unnecessarily, consigning even larger numbers to long-term health problems and so forth is somehow a good choice?

If I squint my eyes a bit. Reduce the burden on the pension system?

If I squint my eyes, I don't think it would even reduce the burden on the state pension system when you take into account the benefit system it is part of.

Long-term disabled or ill people who are unable to work will effectively take early retirement (in some cases they can draw on their actual pension early too), and depend on state support from then on whether it's called pension or something else. The duration of payouts will be longer than for ordinary retirement age.

It's not just miserable for those survivors, it's expensive for the state.

Long-term health problems are also likely to cost more in healthcare later.

True, but do more people end up in long term care than dead?

I’d guess so, based on what I read so far, but not sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com