Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[DGuller]

Does it mean that you putting a price of infinity on human life, knowing that it is an impossible price, make you unfit for making safety decisions?  Yes, absolutely.

Why?

Because resources are limited, so spending resources on one thing leaves you with less resources for spending on other things.  Even if you want to spend every last resource to save lives, you still have to put a price on a life, because life can end in many different ways, and you don't have enough resources to address all of these ways.  If you spend $100 billion to save 100 lives from disease A, you can't spend that $100 billion to save 10,000 lives from disease B.  By being too virtuous to put a price on human life, you robbed yourself of a tool to judge whether you're making a good investment, and you caused extra 9,900 deaths.

[alfred russel]

For infectious diseases, if you took that approach, we would have been locking ourselves down for flu season.

[Oexmelin]

@Guller
But these calculations carry, and indeed, channel, underlying moral qualifiers. Putting a price on human life may lead you to make all sorts of morally bankrupt good investments, no?

[Zoupa]

Does it mean that you putting a price of infinity on human life, knowing that it is an impossible price, make you unfit for making safety decisions?  Yes, absolutely.

Why?

Because resources are limited, so spending resources on one thing leaves you with less resources for spending on other things.  Even if you want to spend every last resource to save lives, you still have to put a price on a life, because life can end in many different ways, and you don't have enough resources to address all of these ways.  If you spend $100 billion to save 100 lives from disease A, you can't spend that $100 billion to save 10,000 lives from disease B.  By being too virtuous to put a price on human life, you robbed yourself of a tool to judge whether you're making a good investment, and you caused extra 9,900 deaths.

That's nice and all, but if/when you get seriously sick, do you want someone like me treating you, or someone that thinks like you?

I guess we both chose the right professions.

[The Brain]

Does it mean that you putting a price of infinity on human life, knowing that it is an impossible price, make you unfit for making safety decisions?  Yes, absolutely.

Why?

Because resources are limited, so spending resources on one thing leaves you with less resources for spending on other things.  Even if you want to spend every last resource to save lives, you still have to put a price on a life, because life can end in many different ways, and you don't have enough resources to address all of these ways.  If you spend $100 billion to save 100 lives from disease A, you can't spend that $100 billion to save 10,000 lives from disease B.  By being too virtuous to put a price on human life, you robbed yourself of a tool to judge whether you're making a good investment, and you caused extra 9,900 deaths.

That's nice and all, but if/when you get seriously sick, do you want someone like me treating you, or someone that thinks like you?

I guess we both chose the right professions.

I'm not trying to be an asshole (LOL I know, but seriously I'm not), but I also don't think you want me to lie to you. I have never in my professional life (a professional life largely spent in high-safety industries) encountered anyone who holds your opinion on pricetags on lives. If I ever did I would be very surprised, and I would keep that person far from any safety-related decisions.

[DGuller]

That's nice and all, but if/when you get seriously sick, do you want someone like me treating you, or someone that thinks like you?

Like myself, of course.  I want my doctor to think rationally to maximize his effectiveness, I don't want him to embrace nonsense impossible ideals because he thinks that makes him look good to others.

[DGuller]

@Guller
But these calculations carry, and indeed, channel, underlying moral qualifiers. Putting a price on human life may lead you to make all sorts of morally bankrupt good investments, no?

At some point you have to fucking do something when you're a decision maker.  It's impossible for everyone in society to endlessly debate the moral bankruptcy of valuing some lives over others, some people have to make operational decisions at the end of the day in order for our society to function.

[crazy canuck]

Ballpark?

I mean are we talking JR or are we talking Hans?

[crazy canuck]

Does it mean that you putting a price of infinity on human life, knowing that it is an impossible price, make you unfit for making safety decisions?  Yes, absolutely.

Why?

Because resources are limited, so spending resources on one thing leaves you with less resources for spending on other things.  Even if you want to spend every last resource to save lives, you still have to put a price on a life, because life can end in many different ways, and you don't have enough resources to address all of these ways.  If you spend $100 billion to save 100 lives from disease A, you can't spend that $100 billion to save 10,000 lives from disease B.  By being too virtuous to put a price on human life, you robbed yourself of a tool to judge whether you're making a good investment, and you caused extra 9,900 deaths.

That's nice and all, but if/when you get seriously sick, do you want someone like me treating you, or someone that thinks like you?

I guess we both chose the right professions.

I'm not trying to be an asshole (LOL I know, but seriously I'm not), but I also don't think you want me to lie to you. I have never in my professional life (a professional life largely spent in high-safety industries) encountered anyone who holds your opinion on pricetags on lives. If I ever did I would be very surprised, and I would keep that person far from any safety-related decisions.

As you said, context is important.  Zoupa said he was answering as a health care professional. Others will make difficult judgments about what resources to provide to the system.  We want the health care workers in the system to use those resources and not further ration on a cost basis.  That defeats all the work of those who thought about it in the first place. 

[Oexmelin]

At some point you have to fucking do something when you're a decision maker.  It's impossible for everyone in society to endlessly debate the moral bankruptcy of valuing some lives over others, some people have to make operational decisions at the end of the day in order for our society to function.

I agree, but this is precisely the crux of the matter. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been the foundational conundrum of moral and political philosophy for the last thousands of years. To say that people in positions of leadership must make tough choices that involves hierarchies and sacrifice is trivial. The idea that such hierarchies and sacrifices should be associated with a price tag is perhaps more difficult.

To assess the value of life in purely monetary matters (or utilitarian matters) reflects a moral outlook on life, which comes with its own constraints. It truly is a guide for action, don't get me wrong, but it produces certain moral outcomes. Moreover, it has been a guide for action inasmuch as we have actively modified our societies to value such calculations. However, many of our social decisions are based around precisely avoiding to put a price on life, because doing so actually changes the relationship, the outcome, or the value.

Some decisions are actively based on different metrics, which are much harder to quantify (and indeed, fundamentally change when quantified). Comparing the number of people saved by technology X against technology Y is relatively easy. But saving life X against saving life Y involves a lot more (which is what I guess Zoupa was hinting at). To say that it's circumstantial, seems to me, trivial. The devil is truly in the details.

[The Brain]

Does it mean that you putting a price of infinity on human life, knowing that it is an impossible price, make you unfit for making safety decisions?  Yes, absolutely.

Why?

Because resources are limited, so spending resources on one thing leaves you with less resources for spending on other things.  Even if you want to spend every last resource to save lives, you still have to put a price on a life, because life can end in many different ways, and you don't have enough resources to address all of these ways.  If you spend $100 billion to save 100 lives from disease A, you can't spend that $100 billion to save 10,000 lives from disease B.  By being too virtuous to put a price on human life, you robbed yourself of a tool to judge whether you're making a good investment, and you caused extra 9,900 deaths.

That's nice and all, but if/when you get seriously sick, do you want someone like me treating you, or someone that thinks like you?

I guess we both chose the right professions.

I'm not trying to be an asshole (LOL I know, but seriously I'm not), but I also don't think you want me to lie to you. I have never in my professional life (a professional life largely spent in high-safety industries) encountered anyone who holds your opinion on pricetags on lives. If I ever did I would be very surprised, and I would keep that person far from any safety-related decisions.

As you said, context is important.  Zoupa said he was answering as a health care professional. Others will make difficult judgments about what resources to provide to the system.  We want the health care workers in the system to use those resources and not further ration on a cost basis.  That defeats all the work of those who thought about it in the first place.

If you go back and read the discussion you'll get a better picture of what's discussed.

[crazy canuck]

Does it mean that you putting a price of infinity on human life, knowing that it is an impossible price, make you unfit for making safety decisions?  Yes, absolutely.

Why?

Because resources are limited, so spending resources on one thing leaves you with less resources for spending on other things.  Even if you want to spend every last resource to save lives, you still have to put a price on a life, because life can end in many different ways, and you don't have enough resources to address all of these ways.  If you spend $100 billion to save 100 lives from disease A, you can't spend that $100 billion to save 10,000 lives from disease B.  By being too virtuous to put a price on human life, you robbed yourself of a tool to judge whether you're making a good investment, and you caused extra 9,900 deaths.

That's nice and all, but if/when you get seriously sick, do you want someone like me treating you, or someone that thinks like you?

I guess we both chose the right professions.

I'm not trying to be an asshole (LOL I know, but seriously I'm not), but I also don't think you want me to lie to you. I have never in my professional life (a professional life largely spent in high-safety industries) encountered anyone who holds your opinion on pricetags on lives. If I ever did I would be very surprised, and I would keep that person far from any safety-related decisions.

As you said, context is important.  Zoupa said he was answering as a health care professional. Others will make difficult judgments about what resources to provide to the system.  We want the health care workers in the system to use those resources and not further ration on a cost basis.  That defeats all the work of those who thought about it in the first place.

If you go back and read the discussion you'll get a better picture of what's discussed.

Right back at you goat man

[Zoupa]

That's nice and all, but if/when you get seriously sick, do you want someone like me treating you, or someone that thinks like you?

Like myself, of course.  I want my doctor to think rationally to maximize his effectiveness, I don't want him to embrace nonsense impossible ideals because he thinks that makes him look good to others.

You think I'm fucking virtue-signaling? Jesus Christ.

J'en ai plein le cul de discuter avec ces compteurs de piasse Oex. T'es infiniment plus patient et éloquent que moi, have at it.

[DGuller]

That's nice and all, but if/when you get seriously sick, do you want someone like me treating you, or someone that thinks like you?

Like myself, of course.  I want my doctor to think rationally to maximize his effectiveness, I don't want him to embrace nonsense impossible ideals because he thinks that makes him look good to others.

You think I'm fucking virtue-signaling? Jesus Christ.

J'en ai plein le cul de discuter avec ces compteurs de piasse Oex. T'es infiniment plus patient et éloquent que moi, have at it.

My ass is full of arguing with these Oex trash counters. You're infinitely more patient and eloquent than me, have at it.

A bit crude in places, but I can't argue with any of that.

[Zoupa]

Yes yes so witty. Pat yourself on the back, bean counter.