The strategy of favouring the old and the vulnerable will prove disastrous long term.

Dinarius

Prompted by this article from one of the sanest people in British public life:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashing-the-economy-will-also-cost-lives-l9kz50dqb

(You will have to subscribe - free for a month - or buy today’s London Times)

If this strategy of containment continues well into the future, millions of lives will have been damaged irreparably - ruined financially, socially, psychologically, and, in many cases, lost through suicide.

There will almost certainly be a mental health tsunami as a result of this policy.

Is this strategy worth this potential outcome?

I know that some will say I’m advocating a form of euthanasia. But, is there a third way?

It’s very early days and everyone is still groping for a way forward. I’m wondering if the current path is unsustainable and, potentially, extremely dangerous.

D.

IvoryTower

I vote to keep my parents and be poor, I can live with that

It's not even my parent tbh, my missus is high risk, all my brothers and son have asthma. **** the money tbh

Lives > *

Mental health is just an industry now. People having to stay in for a while doesn’t constitute a real mental issue.

alchemist33

Even if you believe that it's only old people who get sick, which it isn't, you'd better hope you don't have a car crash or develop appendicitis while this is going on, because the hospitals will be swamped.

ZX7R

It's not just as simple as saving the old or protecting them ,it's to keep them as safe so the pressure is less on the hospitals other people will get sick young and old from other illnesses accident's ECT.
It's a case of try and keep everyone as safe as possible

somesoldiers

I know a lad in his 70’s lives alone,no wife or kids, got home from the pub last week, was watching UK news ( he doesn’t live in UK but with drink taken got the wrong end of the stick) about over 70’s being quarantined for 4 months, pubs being closed etc and decided he had nothing to live for. Thankfully he was unsuccessful in his attempts

This is a very quickly escalating issue right now and we are very much still in a reactive state.
The measures put in place are to slow the illness down so we can try to cope. If the hospitals can’t cope, lots more people will die.
We need to give it time to see if the measures taken actually work.

Ultimately though, life is for living, not just surviving.

We may get to a point were we have to just face this thing head on and accept the casualties.

But let’s see if we can stop this thing in a humane way first.

Maxpfizer

IvoryTower wrote: »

I vote to keep my parents and be poor, I can live with that

It's not even my parent tbh, my missus is high risk, all my brothers and son have asthma. **** the money tbh

To be fair, the OP is talking about long term and specifically mentions that.

So if your parents are in the vulnerable age range then long term they aren't going to always be around.

Similarly people with underlying conditions who are at risk now will also be at risk in the long term if being poor is the long term consequence.

Poor people tend to do worse in terms of access to healthcare and life expectancy etc.

So there would be a trade off there in that being poor in the future would also be a risk factor. Though presumably not nearly as high as rolling the dice with COVID-19.

SEPT 23 1989

If we can't protect our old and vulnerable we will have completely failed as a civilised society

Maxpfizer

Maxpfizer wrote: »

To be fair, the OP is talking about long term and specifically mentions that.

So if your parents are in the vulnerable age range then long term they aren't going to always be around.

Similarly people with underlying conditions who are at risk now will also be at risk in the long term if being poor is the long term consequence.

Poor people tend to do worse in terms of access to healthcare and life expectancy etc.

So there would be a trade off there in that being poor in the future would also be a risk factor. Though presumably not nearly as high as rolling the dice with COVID-19.

Probably should just round up all the old and sick and gas them so. Seeing as they won’t be around forever.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Our species didn't get this far, by rolling over and allowing a virus to win!

Being passive and allowing this thing to just run through our population, is not any kind of strategy at all... people can use whatever term they wish... "Herd immunity" etc etc.

But I just call those type of strategies "giving up"... That's why they're such unpalatable ideas. Most people want to go down swinging, even if they might lose the fight.

So we should do what we have always done as a species! Keep trying to survive, even if it's against crappy odds!

kowloon

I get a very strong sense that a large number of people holding onto this economic argument are just doing it because talking plainly and admitting they care more about their bank account than lives lost looks bad. It's like people saying taxes on wealth hurt the poor because it stops philanthropy from the wealthy. In a way, it's insulting to expect people to fall for it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Said it before, saying it again: mental health issues are not seen as important because they don't effect A&E. That's not a commentary either way, that's just a fact.

Salary Negotiator

Dinarius wrote: »

Prompted by this article from one of the sanest people in British public life:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashing-the-economy-will-also-cost-lives-l9kz50dqb

(You will have to subscribe - free for a month - or buy today’s London Times)

If this strategy of containment continues well into the future, millions of lives will have been damaged irreparably - ruined financially, socially, psychologically, and, in many cases, lost through suicide.

There will almost certainly be a mental health tsunami as a result of this policy.

Is this strategy worth this potential outcome?

I know that some will say I’m advocating a form of euthanasia. But, is there a third way?

It’s very early days and everyone is still groping for a way forward. I’m wondering if the current path is unsustainable and, potentially, extremely dangerous.

D.

Are your parents alive? Are any of your family members in high risk categories?

Maxpfizer

Dinarius wrote: »

Prompted by this article from one of the sanest people in British public life:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashing-the-economy-will-also-cost-lives-l9kz50dqb

(You will have to subscribe - free for a month - or buy today’s London Times)

If this strategy of containment continues well into the future, millions of lives will have been damaged irreparably - ruined financially, socially, psychologically, and, in many cases, lost through suicide.

There will almost certainly be a mental health tsunami as a result of this policy.

Is this strategy worth this potential outcome?

I know that some will say I’m advocating a form of euthanasia. But, is there a third way?

It’s very early days and everyone is still groping for a way forward. I’m wondering if the current path is unsustainable and, potentially, extremely dangerous.

D.

I would reckon that behind the scenes most governments will have discussed this to some extent.

So the measures taking place now will definitely cause long-term damage but this will have been weighed against the long and short term damage of basically doing nothing.

Morally I think we can't just let people die and even politicians and governments have a moral obligation to the people.

Maybe some uncaring robot AI would decide "let it spread and deal with the consequences short term to save the long term future".

I don't think ANY western government could do that and get away with it though. In so many ways it would be reprehensible to sit and do nothing. History would not look kindly on those who just said "let the old and vulnerable die".

The future is unknown basically so there is always a chance that the action taken now will not be as disastrous as you fear. However, there will almost certainly be many indirect deaths from situations such as suicide and potential poverty etc.

There isn't really any way to absolutely guarantee a "good" outcome here. Probably there isn't a "good" solution here at all.

The morally correct thing to do is, in my opinion, do everything we can now and then also try to solve the problems in the future too.

There’s already lots of people complaining of boredom and isolation and we’re not even in lockdown. We’ve only been in semi lockdown for a week.

Sticking to this long term just won’t happen.

It’s just a way to try delay the illness so hospitals can cope and we figure out next steps.

Right now, the world is just like a heavyweight boxer that got floored and managed to get back up. We just need to hang in there for now.

splinter65

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Probably should just round up all the old and sick and gas them so. Seeing as they won’t be around forever.

This is the real face of progressive left wing ideology AKA socialism. If we kill enough people who are surplus to requirements then we will have achieved equality throughout society.

kowloon

splinter65 wrote: »

This is the real face of progressive left wing ideology AKA socialism. If we kill enough people who are surplus to requirements then we will have achieved equality throughout society.

Give it a rest.

I'll speculate that the OP isn't the most altruistic individual here. I'm all for preserving the lives of my loved ones, the economy doesn't enter into the equation over next few weeks while crisis escalates. Short-term financial pain for long-term gain of humanity.

The most "extremely dangerous" mentality is showing indifference towards the vulnerable and elderly.

Salary Negotiator

splinter65 wrote: »

This is the real face of progressive left wing ideology AKA socialism. If we kill enough people who are surplus to requirements then we will have achieved equality throughout society.

Huh?

The post you quoted was sarcastic and the OP was favouring they economy over people so a fairly right wing concept and you’re having a pop at socialism?

Sam Hain

somesoldiers wrote: »

I know a lad in his 70’s lives alone,no wife or kids, got home from the pub last week, was watching UK news ( he doesn’t live in UK but with drink taken got the wrong end of the stick) about over 70’s being quarantined for 4 months, pubs being closed etc and decided he had nothing to live for. Thankfully he was unsuccessful in his attempts

I have to laugh cause otherwise I'd cry.

Maxpfizer

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Probably should just round up all the old and sick and gas them so. Seeing as they won’t be around forever.

Well, that escalated quickly.

It's true that there will likely be severe long term consequences to the actions we are taking now.

It's a balancing act and we have not yet seen how all this is going to play out.

nthclare

Being a bit wired negatively myself and since I was a kid I often though about wars, doomsday scenarios and fear of losing my loved ones etc


Drank and drugged from 1992 until 2003, gave up that off it all 17 years now.
But the fear always lingered and over the years I bought power tools, fishing line, rods reels, Bush craft tools never used the bushcraft stuff to be honest as im a 9 to 5 Monday to Friday guy and entertained my son at weekends.
He's nearly 19 now.

So I've more time on my hands he's doing his own thing most weekends.
So im laid after 13 years on the job... But they're taking us back when this subsides.

Living rurally ain't necessarily going to shield me 100% but im well stocked up and have square miles of limestone carst landscape and Hazel Woods just over my boundary wall and most of it is common land, the commons in the Burren.
And the beaches and headlands are a 15 minute drive away.

So im going to do the bushcraft thing and make a story about it,

I always wanted to do it, from watching guys in America/Turkey and Nordic countries getting into the woods etc.

I've my money all sorted for bills etc and food.

Cars filled up and ill top it up every time it goes to 3 quarters full.
Just to have a full tank.

Getting back to sculpture too and using shells etc to enhance the bathroom instead of tiling around the mirrors ill shell it.

Now is the time to be creative, supportive and live fully if you can.

Our governments and experts are obviously all sitting down behind closed doors weighing up all the information they have and predicting the short, medium and long term plans.

Isolation can’t go on for a long period.

growleaves

I get a very strong sense that a large number of people holding onto this economic argument are just doing it because talking plainly and admitting they care more about their bank account than lives lost looks bad.

I don't agree with that. Is the point of the thread to discuss the issue raised by the OP or to cast aspersions on people's motivations?

I can make money sitting here at my desk at home. What I'm concerned about is open-ended economic damage leading to food shortages, which will kill elderly and vulnerable people SUCH AS my father in his 70s who is currently staying in around-the-clock so he doesn't get Covid-19.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

This is the real face of progressive left wing ideology AKA socialism. If we kill enough people who are surplus to requirements then we will have achieved equality throughout society.

Again what your describing is capitalism/neo liberal ideology not socialism but hey you never let facts get in the way when posting before why start now.

kowloon

nthclare wrote: »

Getting back to sculpture too and using shells etc to enhance the bathroom instead of tiling around the mirrors ill shell it.

Now is the time to be creative, supportive and live fully if you can.

Was that a Demolition Man reference?

Runaways

nthclare wrote: »

Being a bit wired negatively myself and since I was a kid I often though about wars, doomsday scenarios and fear of losing my loved ones etc


Drank and drugged from 1992 until 2003, gave up that off it all 17 years now.
But the fear always lingered and over the years I bought power tools, fishing line, rods reels, Bush craft tools never used the bushcraft stuff to be honest as im a 9 to 5 Monday to Friday guy and entertained my son at weekends.
He's nearly 19 now.

So I've more time on my hands he's doing his own thing most weekends.
So im laid after 13 years on the job... But they're taking us back when this subsides.

Living rurally ain't necessarily going to shield me 100% but im well stocked up and have square miles of limestone carst landscape and Hazel Woods just over my boundary wall and most of it is common land, the commons in the Burren.
And the beaches and headlands are a 15 minute drive away.

So im going to do the bushcraft thing and make a story about it,

I always wanted to do it, from watching guys in America/Turkey and Nordic countries getting into the woods etc.

I've my money all sorted for bills etc and food.

Cars filled up and ill top it up every time it goes to 3 quarters full.
Just to have a full tank.

Getting back to sculpture too and using shells etc to enhance the bathroom instead of tiling around the mirrors ill shell it.

Now is the time to be creative, supportive and live fully if you can.

That sounds brilliant. Good for you.

kowloon

growleaves wrote: »

I don't agree with that. Is the point of the thread to discuss the issue raised by the OP or to cast aspersions on people's motivations?

I can make money sitting here at my desk at home. What I'm concerned about is open-ended economic damage leading to food shortages, which will kill elderly and vulnerable people SUCH AS my father in his 70s who is currently staying in around-the-clock so he doesn't get Covid-19.

I'm not saying everyone making the economic argument is doing it out of greed, but I am saying the greedy are pretty fond of the argument.
I honestly don't think food shortages will be a problem, although I can see shortages of particular foods being a problem. Think bananas during the Emergency.

Manach

The OP and the article are a form of utilaritarism taken to its edge concilusion. To dispose of those that are to longer useful or even recognise them as worthy of support in the wider society. In the post-repeal 8th Ireland, that this is prevalence is not a surprise, but at least it has it has a historical precedent. The historian Michael Burleigh detailed how these were achieved during WW2 Germany on the eldery and infirm. For the greater good of course.

Maxpfizer

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Well, that escalated quickly.

It's true that there will likely be severe long term consequences to the actions we are taking now.

It's a balancing act and we have not yet seen how all this is going to play out.

The post I replied to was the escalation. Scary stuff that someone can want population culls.