Remix clone Hacker News

> 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.

▲

concordDance 2 days ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	motorest 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> 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?
	▲	zemvpferreira 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.