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

auspicious

trapp wrote: »

That comment there sums it up for you.

Favouring under 20s would never be disastrous long term as they are the future of the world.

Not necessarily. The death rate, as yet , is approx. 4%.
The 'old and vulnerable' are also a large part the future.

trapp

auspicious wrote: »

Not necessarily. The death rate, as yet , is approx. 4%.
The 'old and vulnerable' are also a large part the future.

The vulnerable yes.

The old are not the future of the country.

And I am not suggesting kill them off or anything like that.

Our children are the future of the country.

ITman88

trapp wrote: »

The vulnerable yes.

The old are not the future of the country.

And I am not suggesting kill them off or anything like that.

Our children are the future of the country.

Yeah at the risk of being slated here, I’m unaware how the old could be considered the future.
The kids as you have said are the future, the rest of us are in the now.

trapp

trapp wrote: »

Our children are the future

Children... Children... Future.. Future...

auspicious

trapp wrote: »

The vulnerable yes.



And I am not suggesting kill them off or anything like that.

Our children are the future of the country.

I understand you but the thread title suggests so; why allow the economy suffer greatly when we can put less measures in place while trying to save 'them'.
The old ( define old ) created and maintain the present for the future generations. They're part of the family unit at the heart of civil society.
If society starts to leave people behind because the only alternative is a harder but viable solution then the future looks bleak regardless.

trapp

auspicious wrote: »

I understand you but the thread title suggests so; why allow the economy suffer greatly when we can put less measures in place while trying to save 'them'.
The old ( define old ) created and maintain the present for the future generations. They're part of the family unit at the heart of civil society.
If society starts to leave people behind because the only alternative is a harder but viable solution then the future looks bleak regardless.

Agree.

Read my previous posts for the point I'm making, I don't think the thread title is accurate, I just don't believe current restrictive methods are sustainable for any amount of reasons.

The main one being that the human need for relationships, love and friendship will eventually overcome the fear of death.

And walking around with a mask on, avoiding everybody but those you live with is not a society.

It's a version of hell on earth.

Hector Savage

Lockdown for a year though, it's too much ...

Ashleigh1986

For the economy of any country , it's all about the children .
They are the future tax payers .
The elderly have worked and paid their taxes .
In general the elderly put a cost on any country's finances .
Old age pension / cost of care .
I know it's not the right thing to say ...BUT ....
If there's a choice to make ... Elderly or children ???
The children will always be chosen over the elderly .

Hamsterchops

In an ideal world; If only I could contract the virus (for herd Immunity purposes), without the risk of passing it on to anybody else.

However......

In the real world; This is not a smart move as it's too risky by half, it would also be selfish, so I am playing my part in society by not getting into giant queues in Tesco, or joining mass herds down the seafront or in the park. That's all I can do + wash my hands with soap & water ten times a day.

jmayo

By fook there are a fair few dominic cummins out there.

To paraphrase "First they came for my grandparents and I did nothing".

Society is on a very slippery slope if it decides that we should throw a certain section under the bus when times get a little hard.

By fook a lot of the old ones that some want to see the end of had balls and were 100 times tougher than some of the young shytes today.

If this was the attitude in Europe in 1940, then we would indeed have generations of a Third Reich.

The Western world has gone to shyte, we have the ones who think everyone should be allowed live where they want, another bunch of numpties that think staying indoors a wee while is not for them, and another bunch who think it is ok to wholesale sell out generations rather than take any economic hit.

jmayo

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

Well I am going to be quite blunt here and openly state he is a complete muppet.
If someone jumps to that conclusion watching a bit of telly and thinks being quarantined for 4 months is the end of the world, then they are a grade A feckin eejit.

Would he be the type of guy whose life revolves around a trip to the pub every night?

CtevenSrowder

jmayo wrote: »

By fook there are a fair few dominic cummins out there.

Not on this thread their aren't.

jmayo wrote: »

To paraphrase "First they came for my grandparents and I did nothing".

We are currently doing something. So this phrase doesn't apply.

jmayo wrote: »

Society is on a very slippery slope if it decides that we should throw a certain section under the bus when times get a little hard.

An economic depression is more serious then "a little hard". And noone is being "thrown under the bus". Read more than 1 page of the thread.

jmayo wrote: »

By fook a lot of the old ones that some want to see the end of had balls and were 100 times tougher than some of the young shytes today.

If this was the attitude in Europe in 1940, then we would indeed have generations of a Third Reich.

Noone wants to see "the end of" the elderly. The comparison to 1940's is no comparison at all.

jmayo wrote: »

The Western world has gone to shyte, we have the ones who think everyone should be allowed live where they want, another bunch of numpties that think staying indoors a wee while is not for them, and another bunch who think it is ok to wholesale sell out generations rather than take any economic hit.

We are currently taking an economic hit. So your last point is mute. Again, as has been said many times, the question is how long can it go on before the positives of this current action outweigh the negatives.

Btw, which out of your 3 groups would you place yourself in, or are you above it all?

deathbomber

Hector Savage wrote: »

Lockdown for a year though, it's too much ...

Not going to happen, treatments (not vaccine) will be approved soon, in fact i feel from today over the next 2 weeks expect positive news

Lord TSC

jmayo wrote: »

If someone jumps to that conclusion watching a bit of telly and thinks being quarantined for 4 months is the end of the world, then they are a grade A feckin eejit.

No one is suggesting it's the "end of the world" if we're quarantined for 4 months.

But it's insane how little empathy is being offered to the 200k people (so far) who've just had their livelyhoods stripped away from them, and a refusal by a large group to even achknowledge that a lot of people will be able to accept the realities of the next few weeks AND want to try and sort some plan for the future months and years as well.

It is widely accepted that what is happening now is absolutely nessecary, if not still actually being not harsh enough.

At the same time, there are hundreds of thousands of people who don't know how they'll be feeding themselves and their families in the coming months. How they'll be able to afford to send their kids to school (whenever schools actually open back up). If they'll be able to afford the roof over their heads.

We can acknowledge this AS WELL as acknowledging the measures being taken are needed for the health of society. We can discuss the future as well as the present. It's not one or the other.

We're all being told to stay at home, rightly. Luckily, it also provides plenty of us the chance to actually discuss a broad range of subjects, including short, mid and long term planning.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

By fook there are a fair few dominic cummins out there.

To paraphrase "First they came for my grandparents and I did nothing".

Society is on a very slippery slope if it decides that we should throw a certain section under the bus when times get a little hard.

By fook a lot of the old ones that some want to see the end of had balls and were 100 times tougher than some of the young shytes today.

If this was the attitude in Europe in 1940, then we would indeed have generations of a Third Reich.

The Western world has gone to shyte, we have the ones who think everyone should be allowed live where they want, another bunch of numpties that think staying indoors a wee while is not for them, and another bunch who think it is ok to wholesale sell out generations rather than take any economic hit.

This whole "the older generation are expendable, make way for energetic youth" attitude is appalling. What if you lost someone near and dear to you, would the same indifferent mentality still prevail?

Some people have their mindset entrenched in the future, negating the fact that we are dealing with an unprecedented crisis today. The sooner we stop being selfish and observe protocol, the faster we can return to normality.

CtevenSrowder

Deleted User wrote: »

This whole "the older generation are expendable, make way for energetic youth" attitude is appalling. What if you lost someone near and dear to you, would the same indifferent mentality still prevail?

Who, other than (supposedly) Dominic Cummings, has this attitude? The current social isolation protocols are broadly popular. People know why we are doing it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Some people have their mindset entrenched in the future, negating the fact that we are dealing with an unprecedented crisis today. The sooner we stop being selfish and observe protocol, the faster we can return to normality.

Ye, the future. Tomorrow is the future. Dastardly people looking towards the future and the potential consequences of today's decisions. The majority are observing protocol. The ones that aren't are making the same mistake you are, they aren't thinking longer term. Of the future.

Maxpfizer

Deleted User wrote: »

This whole "the older generation are expendable, make way for energetic youth" attitude is appalling. What if you lost someone near and dear to you, would the same indifferent mentality still prevail?

But I have lost people near and dear to me in the past and I didn't drive my entire life (and the lives of those who are dependent on me) off a cliff in response.

I still went to work. I still managed my money. I still kept moving towards my personal long term goals etc.

Even when losing someone to a long term illness you don't burn your entire life to the ground trying to save theirs. Especially not when others are depending on you to keep things going along.

For sure this "the older generation are expendable, make way for energetic youth" attitude is wrong but people are right to be concerned about the long term implications.

If this goes on many people will find themselves with no money at all. Some will find themselves whittling away savings that they spent years and years building up. Eventually there will be a question of how long this can reasonably go on for.

OK. I don't care so much if some rich people need to miss out on a few luxuries but there will be others who cannot go without work and income for very long.

Of course the solution isn't to take granny and granda out to the barn and put them out of their misery. No. That's abhorrent.

Eventually though very difficult questions will need to be asked and answered.

If this follows the path of the Spanish Flu it could mutate to a far more dangerous strain in the autumn and wipe out large numbers of people in their prime. And we will have no economic resources whatsoever left to fight it.

OR any other public health measure.

Medium term we will have to cut pensions, health services etc to pay for all this.

We are really like the Brits were in the Battle of Britain - it is only because Hitler invaded the USSR instead of just finishing off the RAF that they survived.

I think maybe 6 weeks of this is the absolute outside it can last, and after that we will have to let it run it's course. We don't have the massive foreign currency reserves and autocratic regime that the Chinese have.

TheCitizen

trapp wrote: »

Eventually the human need for friendship and relationships overcomes the fear of death.

That's a fact, it's indisputable and it's why these measures can't last long term.

:pac: you forgot to add IMO.

Who defines what's long term, it's like asking how long is a piece of string. We haven't even faced the teeth of this storm yet and we have posters like you wailing “we can't go like this”. We need everyone to do what's necessary, get with the plan.

TheCitizen

trapp wrote: »

Our children are the future of the country.

beolight

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.

Cool set up a separate thread and keep us posted

All the best

TheCitizen

Maxpfizer wrote: »

But I have lost people near and dear to me in the past and I didn't drive my entire life (and the lives of those who are dependent on me) off a cliff in response.

I still went to work. I still managed my money. I still kept moving towards my personal long term goals etc.

Even when losing someone to a long term illness you don't burn your entire life to the ground trying to save theirs. Especially not when others are depending on you to keep things going along.

For sure this "the older generation are expendable, make way for energetic youth" attitude is wrong but people are right to be concerned about the long term implications.

If this goes on many people will find themselves with no money at all. Some will find themselves whittling away savings that they spent years and years building up. Eventually there will be a question of how long this can reasonably go on for.

OK. I don't care so much if some rich people need to miss out on a few luxuries but there will be others who cannot go without work and income for very long.

Of course the solution isn't to take granny and granda out to the barn and put them out of their misery. No. That's abhorrent.

Eventually though very difficult questions will need to be asked and answered.

Who's telling you not to? You go to work if you can, you work from home if you can, but you stick to the advice from the experts on this and ignore eejits like Boris Johnson Trump and fake knowitalls that know nothing some of whom are on this thread.

TheCitizen

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.

This post reminded me of the Bush Tucker Man

TheBoyConor

I also predict a massive upsurge in suicides in a few months time.

I remember in the last recession I had to cut down three people. One of them a friend.

TheBoyConor

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I also predict a massive upsurge in suicides in a few months time.

I remember in the last recession I had to cut down three people. One of them a friend.

Problem is that these deaths, along with those related to chronic stress and anxiety when people cant put food on their family's table, will be invisible. And thus are discounted by most when set alongside the visible coronavirus deaths. Even though they will likely be greater in number, and more damaging to families and society generally

Cilldara_2000

trapp wrote: »

The vulnerable yes.

The old are not the future of the country.

And I am not suggesting kill them off or anything like that.

Our children are the future of the country.

Meaningless slogan. At what point does someone stop being part of the future? The day they die, day before they die, the day they retire from work, the day they turn 50 ....? Or perhaps the day they turn 18?

Just like everything else, there's no black and white and nuance is lost on most people.

Cilldara_2000

Maxpfizer wrote: »

But I have lost people near and dear to me in the past and I didn't drive my entire life (and the lives of those who are dependent on me) off a cliff in response.

I still went to work. I still managed my money. I still kept moving towards my personal long term goals etc.

Even when losing someone to a long term illness you don't burn your entire life to the ground trying to save theirs. Especially not when others are depending on you to keep things going along.

For sure this "the older generation are expendable, make way for energetic youth" attitude is wrong but people are right to be concerned about the long term implications.

If this goes on many people will find themselves with no money at all. Some will find themselves whittling away savings that they spent years and years building up. Eventually there will be a question of how long this can reasonably go on for.

OK. I don't care so much if some rich people need to miss out on a few luxuries but there will be others who cannot go without work and income for very long.

Of course the solution isn't to take granny and granda out to the barn and put them out of their misery. No. That's abhorrent.

Eventually though very difficult questions will need to be asked and answered.

If you're consistent, I'd imagine you shrugged your shoulders and didn't miss any work etc. No point in going to their funerals either. Old dead people? Sure they're yesterday's news.

We're not even two weeks into any sort of serious effort here yet. We'll have to wait and see what happens before we decide to abandon the old, the sick and the vulnerable to premature deaths.

trapp

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Meaningless slogan. At what point does someone stop being part of the future? The day they die, day before they die, the day they retire from work, the day they turn 50 ....? Or perhaps the day they turn 18?

Just like everything else, there's no black and white and nuance is lost on most people.

It's not meaningless my good friend.

The children and teenagers of today are the future.

Arguing against that defies logic.

Cilldara_2000

trapp wrote: »

It's not meaningless my good friend.

The children and teenagers of today are the future.

Arguing against that defies logic.

Is it just the children and teenagers? What about people aged 20? Or people aged 30? And so on. Where's your cut off point?

trapp

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Is it just the children and teenagers? What about people aged 20? Or people aged 30? And so on. Where's your cut off point?

I understand what your're saying and I don't agree with the thread title either so please read my previous posts to understand my point of view.

Generally speaking, the children of the country are it's future and long term that needs to be considered also.

I would consider anyone under 25 to be the 'young' but it's not a cut off where we sacrifice the others.

Please read my previous posts for my point of view.