This isn't my stance, but I'll steelman it anyway:
Those at highest risk of death are the 70+. Coincidentally, people 70+ also have already led long lives / have the least utility left to give back to the society that is doing the prioritization. It is therefore more important to give doses to young people first, as someone needlessly dying with 60 years left on their clock is significantly worse than someone who has already had the opportunity to live a full life and statistically would've died within the next 10 years anyway.
Shouldn't we take into account that someone dying earlier is worse than someone dying old? Not sure if that would flip the balance, it may for people around 20-25 maybe, or at least balance things.
Given the ongoing statistics coming out of South Korea (which I'd suggest are the most accurate) where only one person under 50 has died. It seems that these safeguards would be best spent around those aged 60+ and perhaps those 50+ with other health issues.
Those who are younger seem to be mildly affected for the most part and could go on with their lives as long as they didn't interact with the older population.
Yeah, that's often raised in the hypothetical. Typically, older people with the least remaining life to risk are the least rash with their decision making!
It is even a lot worse for people in this age group.
60-70 year olds have a case fatality rate of ~3-4% here in Germany and that despite not being limited by the capacity of the health care system yet. A sixty year old can easily expect a decade or two of extra-lifetime. That's the difference between seeing the grandchild finish school and being a vague memory for them.
UK had strict age-banded rollout, starting with the eldest. By the end of this study, I had just had my first dose (I'm 27, and I booked it as soon as possible). It's not at all surprising that older populations were more likely to die.
I think a 70 year old has less to lose and more incentive to take a risk on things he really wants to do than a 57 year old. No matter how rich you are, you can't stop aging (yet).
And when you risk sudden catastrophic death, I'm not sure that the wealthy person really has more to lose than a poor person, we all only get one life. His heirs will be taken care of either way, how can his life be valued higher than, say, one of his pilots?
If we have to choose between having a 75 year old and a 5 year old die, most people would choose the 75 year old. They would be dying relatively soon anyways.
Right, it's better to be healthy at 90 than in chemotherapy. However, I question the societal and individual benefits of enabling everyone to live to 100.
> We need to rethink the way we think about the elderly, because one day those elderly will be us.
I find this Western fear of death to be toxic. One day we'll grow old and die - and that's ok, that's how life works.
Yes I agree with you, I am concerned with the elderly & infants. As these are the demographics which usually have higher fatal outcome both in diseases, and even adverse effects from drugs/surgery.
Things that can kill a 70 year old include such threats as falling over, or moderate exercise. At no point in thousands of years of human history have we seriously tried to keep all the 70 year olds who were alive at the start of the year alive at the start oft he next year. It isn't possible.
60s is a different thing, but at 70 there are very real questions about whether a quarantine is even worth it. Do you risk losing half your remaining lifespan in a quarantine, attempting to avoid a 30% chance of death? The calculus is grim, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.
I don't think so. All else equal, a 75 year old is more likely to drop dead tomorrow than a 25 year old (or healthy newborn) is, so the 10% death probability is less of a problem for them. Moreover, the years at the end of one's life are not quite the same as years of youth.
As someone whose parents are pushing that age, and whose grandparents did years ago, it's not that simple. Someone's personal medical situation and what they do and don't have matters a lot more 70+. Diabetes, cancer, and heart disease in particular; I've lost colleagues to the last two as young as their 40s and 50s.
When the dice of fate come up snake-eyes, whether due to an undiagnosed problem that got missed or wonky genetics, it's your time, and no one is entitled to live into their 90s.
Those at highest risk of death are the 70+. Coincidentally, people 70+ also have already led long lives / have the least utility left to give back to the society that is doing the prioritization. It is therefore more important to give doses to young people first, as someone needlessly dying with 60 years left on their clock is significantly worse than someone who has already had the opportunity to live a full life and statistically would've died within the next 10 years anyway.
reply