Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by motorest 440 days ago
> Could it be that many of those people whose death was caused by pollution may have been frail and close to death anyway?

What point are you trying to make? I mean, you don't seem to dispute that pollution can and does kill people.
1 comments
concordDance 440 days ago
Yeah, but there's a big difference between dying a few months earlier when you'd already be bedridden with your mind mostly gone and dying 50 years early.

Which is why QALYs are such a good metric.

link
motorest 440 days ago
> Yeah, but there's a big difference between dying a few months earlier (...)

What leads you to believe that's the case? And again what's the point of ignoring health risks because some victims might possibly have lower life expectancies?

link
zemvpferreira 440 days ago
You make a good point but I think adding QALYs to this discussion is unnecessary complication, for one reason: like most public health menaces, pollution will impact lifespan and healthspan proportionatly, ie you’ll die sooner and also live worse years if you’re exposed. There is a proportionately better chance of ageing well and dieing later if you avoid it.

QALYs really shine when measuring a one-off risk, such as an operation or cancer treatment that might add lifespan but decrease healthspan. If QALY data exists for pollution that’s great, but I think we can easily extrapolate the impact in healthspan from the toll in lifespan.

link