Comment by marcus0x62
7 months ago
Show me the cost-benefit analysis that a lack of bubble wrap is causing a huge number of ER visits and amputations every year, and we'll talk.
7 months ago
Show me the cost-benefit analysis that a lack of bubble wrap is causing a huge number of ER visits and amputations every year, and we'll talk.
Since nobody walks around in bubble wrap I don't think there would be any existing cost-benefit analyses.
I was using bubble wrap as a joke thing more than an actual suggestion. My point is, just because something would lower the number of costs to society doesn't mean we should start mandating it.
An example of something that for sure saves lives and lowers public costs is mandating adults wear helms on bicycles.
> An example of something that for sure saves lives and lowers public costs is mandating adults wear helms on bicycles.
That's potentially a bad example. The largest cause of mortality (or lost quality-adjusted life years - QALY) is from cardiovascular events, and those events are inversely correlated to physical activity levels. Cycling is physical activity, and helmet laws, where passed, have typically coincided with a marked decrease in cycling.
Under some reasonable assumptions, helmet laws cause less cycling, which causes less physical activity in the population, which causes more cardiovascular events, and the overall negative QALY impact outweighs the relatively small positive impact from fewer head injuries (especially compared to government pro-helmet safety messaging that has been optimised to minimise cycling deterrence while increasing helmet uptake as an alternative policy).
Cardiovascular disease imposes costs society, both direct costs through the medical system, and opportunity cost in lost taxes when workers die.
If we apply the logic above, those costs provide justification for mandating and criminalizing diet and exercise.
2 replies →
> An example of something that for sure saves lives and lowers public costs is mandating adults wear helms on bicycles.
For sure huh :)
See my older post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39658466
TL;DR:
"Cycling UK wants to keep helmets an optional choice. Forcing - or strongly encouraging - people to wear helmets deters people from cycling and undermines the public health benefits of cycling. This campaign seeks to educate policy makers and block misguided attempts at legislation."
&
"Enforced helmet laws and helmet promotion have consistently caused substantial reductions in cycle use (30-40% in Perth, Western Australia).
The resulting loss of cycling’s health benefits alone (that is, before taking account of its environmental, economic and societal benefits) is very much greater than any possible injury prevention benefit."
&
"Cycling levels in the Netherlands have substantial population-level health benefits: about 6500 deaths are prevented annually, and Dutch people have half-a-year-longer life expectancy. These large population-level health benefits translate into economic benefits of €19 billion per year, which represents more than 3% of the Dutch gross domestic product between 2010 and 2013.3."
I think you know what I am talking about. Actual helmet usage. Wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one.
If you look at the number of auto deaths 100 years ago it is lower than today. You can't use that ad proof that seatbelts cause deaths. Instead you have to look at other factors like the amount of drivers. With my helmet example you would look at lives saved from wearing the helmet.
Secondly, I've seen some studies (I think it was in the UK, but didn't feel like trying to find it) that showed people dying younger is actually more cost effective since older people have larger medical expenses.
Yes, and the point I was making is that some safety interventions make sense and are not at all analogous to trying to cover everyone in bubble wrap.