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

Vanar

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

Serious mental illness affects A&E and other aspects of the health service, and will continue to be dealt with. For example, I know from work that inpatient psychiatric units have been designated among the essential services to keep running as a matter of priority during the crisis. Lower-level "mental health issues" haven't been completely forgotten about as plans have been put in place to continue some level of action on them, but for obvious reasons those less severe issues aren't top priority right now. "Routine" appointments and the like are being postponed as with appointments in other areas of the health service. However it's still important for people to maintain psychological wellbeing, even just from the point of view that it means there's a better chance of them keeping up the infection control measures like distancing.

Manach

Manach wrote: »

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.

Repeal of the 8th doesn't really come into this except for people trying to shoe horn it in.

I could easily say that the argument that the old are disposable in favor of the economy is equivalent to the anti repeal stance that women are disposable, there is plenty of evidence to support the latter.

The majority of people don't believe in the elderly being disposable, the same way that they believe having full health care denied for women was wrong.

Maxpfizer

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

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

Yes. Some "want population culls".
A totally fair and honest representation of the discussion.

Mad_maxx

If the pandemic becomes serious enough, priority will have to be given in hospital to those with the best chance of survival, that's already happening in Italy

The life of a twenty something is more important than that of an eighty year old in those circumstances, nothing heartless about that, it's a harsh reality

shesty

I don't agree with the title of the thread.But the thought has crossed my mind about where exactly is this going.At home struggling with the 3 small kids who are struggling with this massive change in their lives and keeping my job going too.Have seen literally nobody since Thursday week ago, and that will continue.But if in a week or so, we are all still home and assumedly, still healthy....what the?How long and for what, am I keeping my healthy kids and myself and my OH (healthy in body whatever about our sanity!) away from everyone for?I have popped to shops twice and as far asnI can see, older people's lives are continuing as normal while ours have come to a crashing halt and we are juggling like crazy.Our minder now has no income either.At what point do we reach a saturation level of the disease where we say ok, elderly people need to stay home more now, and some sort of normality can return to the lives of younger people?I am not talking about reopening schools full scale or anything,but just wondering...what is the plan here?We are trying to limit it, I get that, but....for how long?

For the record I don't agree with UK approach either.And I think we made the right decision doing what we did But there must be some logic around the points at which certain decisions are made.

kowloon

Mad_maxx wrote: »

If the pandemic becomes serious enough, priority will have to be given in hospital to those with the best chance of survival, that's already happening in Italy

The life of a twenty something is more important than that of an eighty year old in those circumstances, nothing heartless about that, it's a harsh reality

I get what you're saying, but I think a better way a phrasing it is the life of a twenty something is more easily saved than that of an eighty year old. Semantics, I know.

Mad_maxx

kowloon wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but I think a better way a phrasing it is the life of a twenty something is more easily saved than that of an eighty year old. Semantics, I know.

It's also more important in my view

Im 42, my son is three, his life is also more important than mine, ditto my daughter who is eighteen months

splinter65

kowloon wrote: »

Give it a rest.

What’s the problem? Surely if you don’t agree with me then you have a point to make? What is your point? Are you a mod? You don’t get to tell people to “give it a rest”.

Runaways

Mad_maxx wrote: »

If the pandemic becomes serious enough, priority will have to be given in hospital to those with the best chance of survival, that's already happening in Italy

The life of a twenty something is more important than that of an eighty year old in those circumstances, nothing heartless about that, it's a harsh reality

That did not happen. Definition of fake news. The Italian health ministry even took to Twitter to correct some UK MP spreading the story.

Gonad

They should have put as many of the elderly and people most at risk into hotels around the country . They get free food and drink but must stay in their room until the issue is under control

Then just let the rest of us deal with it.

shesty

shesty wrote: »

I don't agree with the title of the thread.But the thought has crossed my mind about where exactly is this going.At home struggling with the 3 small kids who are struggling with this massive change in their lives and keeping my job going too.Have seen literally nobody since Thursday week ago, and that will continue.But if in a week or so, we are all still home and assumedly, still healthy....what the?How long and for what, am I keeping my healthy kids and myself and my OH (healthy in body whatever about our sanity!) away from everyone for?I have popped to shops twice and as far asnI can see, older people's lives are continuing as normal while ours have come to a crashing halt and we are juggling like crazy.Our minder now has no income either.At what point do we reach a saturation level of the disease where we say ok, elderly people need to stay home more now, and some sort of normality can return to the lives of younger people?I am not talking about reopening schools full scale or anything,but just wondering...what is the plan here?We are trying to limit it, I get that, but....for how long?

For the record I don't agree with UK approach either.And I think we made the right decision doing what we did But there must be some logic around the points at which certain decisions are made.

I don’t think we actually have a longer term plan as yet. Just try not to get overwhelmed in terms of cases and deaths while we research this thing.

Obviously staying locked down for a long period is not feasible. The show must go on.

Joe_ Public

Runaways wrote: »

That did not happen. Definition of fake news. The Italian health ministry even took to Twitter to correct some UK MP spreading the story.

Are you saying triage isnt happening in italy right now? I thought it was. I saw a doctor in an icu in bergamo interviewed on sky yesterday. He said this was something that would happen in normal times, maybe twice a week, now it was more times than he could count. It was harrowing viewing, but isnt that the reality of the situation?

Maxpfizer

shesty wrote: »

I don't agree with the title of the thread.But the thought has crossed my mind about where exactly is this going.At home struggling with the 3 small kids who are struggling with this massive change in their lives and keeping my job going too.Have seen literally nobody since Thursday week ago, and that will continue.But if in a week or so, we are all still home and assumedly, still healthy....what the?How long and for what, am I keeping my healthy kids and myself and my OH (healthy in body whatever about our sanity!) away from everyone for?I have popped to shops twice and as far asnI can see, older people's lives are continuing as normal while ours have come to a crashing halt and we are juggling like crazy.Our minder now has no income either.At what point do we reach a saturation level of the disease where we say ok, elderly people need to stay home more now, and some sort of normality can return to the lives of younger people?I am not talking about reopening schools full scale or anything,but just wondering...what is the plan here?We are trying to limit it, I get that, but....for how long?

For the record I don't agree with UK approach either.And I think we made the right decision doing what we did But there must be some logic around the points at which certain decisions are made.

It depends on how long this goes on for and what the government is prepared to do for people who can no longer afford to pay for essential goods and services.

Food still costs money. So right now every person who is out of a job because of this is staring to spend their financial reserves. Maybe they are pushing their credit card to the max or something like that.

At some point, if the current situation continues, you are going to have more and more people who would have otherwise been fine hitting "rock bottom". They've no money left they are relying on handouts etc.

For now supply chains seem to be fine. Food is being produced and transported and that's all running along fine. How safe is that supply though?

If we start seeing food shortages etc then you could easily imagine that the government will just let the virus go and rely on this supposed "herd immunity" to get us through this.

On the other hand that would almost certainly crash health services and the fallout from that would also have utterly disastrous consequences for society.

It's definitely going to be a balancing act and unfortunately what we are likely to see is a combination of deaths caused by the virus directly and deaths caused by the decisions made to deal with the virus.

There isn't really a winning move in all this.

People make the accusation that some care more about their bank balance than the lives of others but at the end of the day food, housing, fuel and energy all cost money.

mullinr2

What if this goes on and on and we can't find a vaccine for it. I mean they still can't find a vaccine for HIV. Maybe this is the world/god whatever you believe in telling us that we over populated and it needs a cull, like the way we cull say deer when their numbers get too large.

mullinr2

mullinr2 wrote: »

What if this goes on and on and we can't find a vaccine for it. I mean they still can't find a vaccine for HIV. Maybe this is the world/god whatever you believe in telling us that we over populated and it needs a cull, like the way we cull say deer when their numbers get too large.

When someone is going on about it being Gods plan they’re about 80% of the way to getting a rifle and starting it themselves from the top of a building.

Guy:Incognito

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

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?

But dont you know, they were the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Everyone knows Hitler was a lefty libtard and thats the aim of todays socialists.

The nazi's werent just socialist in name to be popular at all.......

December2012

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

Thats really sad. I hope he recovers.

Cilldara_2000

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t think we actually have a longer term plan as yet. Just try not to get overwhelmed in terms of cases and deaths while we research this thing.

Obviously staying locked down for a long period is not feasible. The show must go on.

We could always adjust our bat**** insane economic system. The burden of recessions does not have to fall onto the poorest while the wealthiest get richer. Regardless of what happens and over what time period, roughly the same amount of resources will exist in the world, and almost the exact same amount of wealth will exist. Spread it fairly and nobody need take an economic hit at all. But that's probably communism so people will recoil in horror and prefer to burn the old, vulnerable and sick on the fire of "economic growth".

Guy:Incognito

mullinr2 wrote: »

What if this goes on and on and we can't find a vaccine for it. I mean they still can't find a vaccine for HIV..

You dont spread HIV from shaking hands. It's wildly different.

Society can function just fine without casual unprotected sex between strangers if needed. Completely doing away with being within a few feet of other people is a bit more difficult.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

What’s the problem? Surely if you don’t agree with me then you have a point to make? What is your point? Are you a mod? You don’t get to tell people to “give it a rest”.

It might be that you made the same incorrect statement in multiple threads, and then went on to defend the early strategy of the uk government which looked to throw the elderly under a bus.

Joe_ Public

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

We could always adjust our bat**** insane economic system. The burden of recessions does not have to fall onto the poorest while the wealthiest get richer. Regardless of what happens and over what time period, roughly the same amount of resources will exist in the world, and almost the exact same amount of wealth will exist. Spread it fairly and nobody need take an economic hit at all. But that's probably communism so people will recoil in horror and prefer to burn the old, vulnerable and sick on the fire of "economic growth".

I would like us to stop talking about the wealth "creators" for a start, as if they were some sort of god like creatures, spreading life down the food chain for the rest of us. Nobody "creates" wealth. They merely requisition resources and mine it for their own benefit, often conveniently unaware of the deep responsibilities that come attached to it.

AulWan

Mad_maxx wrote: »

If the pandemic becomes serious enough, priority will have to be given in hospital to those with the best chance of survival, that's already happening in Italy

The life of a twenty something is more important than that of an eighty year old in those circumstances, nothing heartless about that, it's a harsh reality

I've seen a couple of threads along these lines now.

Apparently elderly people are good enough to work until they are 68/70 and "contribute to the economy" but once they've outlived their usefulness, are disposable after that?

To actually come out an say outright that their lives are of lesser importance then that of a twenty year old is not only heartless, but absolutely disgusting.

splinter65

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I would like us to stop talking about the wealth "creators" for a start, as if they were some sort of god like creatures, spreading life down the food chain for the rest of us. Nobody "creates" wealth. They merely requisition resources and mine it for their own benefit, often conveniently unaware of the deep responsibilities that come attached to it.

So let’s start at a position where everyone has nothing. What happens then?

Nermal

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Regardless of what happens and over what time period, roughly the same amount of resources will exist in the world, and almost the exact same amount of wealth will exist.

Not true. Suspending a large part of the economy has cost us a lot of output that we will never get back. We have lost vast amounts of wealth and resources doing this.

We’ve been driven by panic and incomplete data into crippling our economy. All for 12 people in the ICU. It’s simply not worth it. We have to relax the measures, and find ways to cocoon the high-risk population.

mullinr2

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You dont spread HIV from shaking hands. It's wildly different.

Society can function just fine without casual unprotected sex between strangers if needed. Completely doing away with being within a few feet of other people is a bit more difficult.

I'm talking about the inability of finding a vaccine for HIV. We are all assuming that a vaccine will be found for Convid 19. What if we can't find one our it takes longer than expected like 5 years. How long do we keep kids away from school and friends? How long do we keep ourselves self isolated for?

Cilldara_2000

Nermal wrote: »

Not true. Suspending a large part of the economy has cost us a lot of output that we will never get back. We have lost vast amounts of wealth and resources doing this.

We’ve been driven by panic and incomplete data into crippling our economy. All for 12 people in the ICU. It’s simply not worth it. We have to relax the measures, and find ways to cocoon the high-risk population.

Unless someone has been firing resources into space, we haven't lost them at all. No real wealth has been lost. Individuals, companies, countries etc might be up or down but the total will not be a whole lot different than it was at the start of February.

99nsr125

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.

Em . . that's the right wing ideology, you know the lack of healthcare

growleaves

Unless someone has been firing resources into space, we haven't lost them at all. No real wealth has been lost.

Productivity has been lost; tangible resources have not. I do think a loss of productivity could translate to a loss of wealth.

Joe_ Public

splinter65 wrote: »

So let’s start at a position where everyone has nothing. What happens then?

I dont think anybody's suggesting such thing is going to happen, do you? Just if current crisis, and climate one rocketing towards us, at least engenders the realisation that neoliberalism has failed and cannot dig us out, we could at least make a start towards some fairer system, a change of culture that can improve things.

I dont have answers, just modest hopes tbh.

s7ryf3925pivug

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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.

Of course mental health issues affect a&e. Self injury or injury to others can result. If someone is obviously psychotic they are likely to be brought to a&e to be evaluated by a psychiatrist and admitted. They might present themselves for imaginary physical emergencies too.

Plenty of mental health related accidents and emergencies. If anything I think the biggest problem is the lack of services before that point. Very much a case of a stitch in time saves nine, but the services often only really kick in when things have unravelled quite badly.