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

Antares35

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

By that logic then the life of someone else's child who is younger than your three year old is more important. Its probably more the fact that they are your kids which is why you think their lives are more important which is normal and expected, but not just because of their age.

Nermal

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

Unless someone has been firing resources into space, we haven't lost them at all.

LOL when you say ‘resources’, you’re picturing iron ore in the ground, aren’t you?

We have lost output, wealth, resources, whatever you want to call it - that we otherwise would have had, because we have closed sections of the economy.

We’ve also lost confidence, debt is going to skyrocket, money velocity will slow to a crawl...

The disaster our current policy is creating can’t be summarised in an emotional clip of a emergency room. Doesn’t mean it’s not real.

maxpowers

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.

The only exit strategy to this is Herd Immunity unfortunately. We know this is the end game but we need to stay in a suppression phase to get a grip on it. We have no idea how long this could be. Its also very unlikely that we will get a vaccine at all just like SARS + MERS.

Cilldara_2000

growleaves wrote: »

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

It's a loss of wealth for the person who has lost productivity. They're paying out wealth to buy resources but someone is receiving that wealth. So we're actually still generating wealth (on a worldwide picture) but far less than we would have been: anyone involved in the food supply chain for example is till getting their profit.

Worst case scenario is to ignore that small element of "wealth creation" that's still ongoing. If we do so, the total wealth is the same as it was before the crisis began. The problem is that some of it it has changed hands. If we do nothing about it, it will just make its way up to the 1% as it always does while everyone else gets poorer.

Donald Trump

maxpowers wrote: »

The only exit strategy to this is Herd Immunity unfortunately. We know this is the end game but we need to stay in a suppression phase to get a grip on it. We have no idea how long this could be. Its also very unlikely that we will get a vaccine at all just like SARS + MERS.

There could be two reasons for no vaccine for some other viruses:

1) Even though the virus persists, it doesn't affect enough people (or cause enough damage) to make it profitable to develop one. A variation of this is where it mutates which makes it even less profitable.
2) They start developing a vaccine and then the virus is brought under control before they can get the vaccination to the public.


Second reason is the reason why people were not vaccinated for SARS

BoatMad

maxpowers wrote: »

The only exit strategy to this is Herd Immunity unfortunately. We know this is the end game but we need to stay in a suppression phase to get a grip on it. We have no idea how long this could be. Its also very unlikely that we will get a vaccine at all just like SARS + MERS.

There is no evidence that Herd immunity works in the absence of a vaccine. The failure of such a strategy could leads to literally millions dying . we have no data when faced with such a virulent virus

Herd immunity isnt any use to you , if you are dead from the disease

jam_mac_jam

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

So is the life of your 18 month old more important than your three year old?

Blaze420

AulWan wrote: »

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.

I agree with you, I’ve seen this sentiment expressed in a few threads now and it’s absolutely disgusting. Oh only the old and sick get it so let’s lock them all away and carry on as normal, I miss the pub rabble rabble :mad: . Some people are just selfish self absorbed assholes - and they will still be assholes when this is all over.

s7ryf3925pivug

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.

This is all backwards and brutal. Our health service is under-resourced. That's what makes this so dangerous. Look at the stats for Germany and Switzerland compared to countries with less well-resourced health services. All of the restrictions are about avoiding completely overwhelming the health service. We're entering this with a healthcare system that's already overwhelmed. We have half the European standard number of intensive care beds.

**** accommodation is going to contribute to it too. It's going to be horrible for people in small or crowded accommodation.

We're a wealthy country where most people have trouble fulfillling their basic needs like housing, healthcare and schooling. ****ing ****show.

storker

mullinr2 wrote: »

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?

It's too early to say how people will or will not be able to cope with isolation and social distancing and it's too early to say how long it will be before the approach yields dividends. The current strategy (not unlike the Fabian strategy used by the Romans against Hannibal ) has only just been implemented and sill has some settling-in to do before we can tell what the long-term effects are. We do, however, belong to the most intelligent and adaptable species that has ever inhabited this planet, and we will find ways. So will businesses. Already, restaurants are seeking permission from the authorities to re-purpose themselves as takeaways. People are working from home who never even considered it as an option before, or whose employers never did. Increasing numbers of members of the older generation are discovering what technology can do for them in terms of keeping in touch. It's definitely premature to declare what people, the economy and business can and can't cope with: the process of adaptation is just getting underway and may well involve accepting new realities at all levels of society.

jam_mac_jam

Blaze420 wrote: »

I agree with you, I’ve seen this sentiment expressed in a few threads now and it’s absolutely disgusting. Oh only the old and sick get it so let’s lock them all away and carry on as normal, I miss the pub rabble rabble :mad: . Some people are just selfish self absorbed assholes - and they will still be assholes when this is all over.

It's disgusting Nazi era ****. I am actually amazed at some of attitudes I am hearing.

I don't really see why my parents are less important than me? Because they are going to die anyway? I could die tomorrow, it's just less likely.

These people have worked all their lives and now they are useless.

People are such babies...oh I can't stay in my house. God help me. Read a book. Grow up.

threeball

Nermal wrote: »

LOL when you say ‘resources’, you’re picturing iron ore in the ground, aren’t you?

We have lost output, wealth, resources, whatever you want to call it - that we otherwise would have had, because we have closed sections of the economy.

We’ve also lost confidence, debt is going to skyrocket, money velocity will slow to a crawl...

The disaster our current policy is creating can’t be summarised in an emotional clip of a emergency room. Doesn’t mean it’s not real.

The constant search for endless economic growth has brought us to this. We are prepared to destroy the entire planet just to get richer. People are as much to blame as governments. Even rich countries like ours arent satisfied. We all want more. Earn more, consume more, travel more, live longer. No doubt this will all be forgotten quickly soon after it ends and we'll return to that endless race. Trump is the personification of this global mindset

Cilldara_2000

storker wrote: »

It's too early to say how people will or will not be able to cope with isolation and social distancing and it's too early to say how long it will be before the approach yields dividends. The current strategy (not unlike the Fabian strategy used by the Romans against Hannibal ) has only just been implemented and sill has some settling-in to do before we can tell what the long-term effects are. We do, however, belong to the most intelligent and adaptable species that has ever inhabited this planet, and we will find ways. So will businesses. Already, restaurants are seeking permission from the authorities to re-purpose themselves as takeaways. People are working from home who never even considered it as an option before, or whose employers never did. Increasing numbers of members of the older generation are discovering what technology can do for them in terms of keeping in touch. It's definitely premature to declare what people, the economy and business can and can't cope with: the process of adaptation is just getting underway and may well involve accepting new realities at all levels of society.

This is very true. Nobody can accurately predict exactly what the outcome will be. On the optimistic side, as a species we have always managed to muddle through all sorts of disasters and crises in the past. We will do the same now while hopefully keeping as many people alive as possible.

jam_mac_jam

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.

It is actually so linked in with facism and extreme right wing thought that you are coming across as very ignorant ascribing it to communism. Learn a bit of history would you?

BoatMad

Madeline Sharp Vellum wrote: »

This is all backwards and brutal. Our health service is under-resourced. That's what makes this so dangerous. Look at the stats for Germany and Switzerland compared to countries with less well-resourced health services. All of the restrictions are about avoiding completely overwhelming the health service. We're entering this with a healthcare system that's already overwhelmed. We have half the European standard number of intensive care beds.

**** accommodation is going to contribute to it too. It's going to be horrible for people in small or crowded accommodation.

We're a wealthy country where most people have trouble fulfillling their basic needs like housing, healthcare and schooling. ****ing ****show.

great , kick a country , where 50,000 healthcare people have volunteered their services .

BoatMad

Originally Posted by storker View Post
It's too early to say how people will or will not be able to cope with isolation and social distancing and it's too early to say how long it will be before the approach yields dividends. The current strategy (not unlike the Fabian strategy used by the Romans against Hannibal ) has only just been implemented and sill has some settling-in to do before we can tell what the long-term effects are. We do, however, belong to the most intelligent and adaptable species that has ever inhabited this planet, and we will find ways. So will businesses. Already, restaurants are seeking permission from the authorities to re-purpose themselves as takeaways. People are working from home who never even considered it as an option before, or whose employers never did. Increasing numbers of members of the older generation are discovering what technology can do for them in terms of keeping in touch. It's definitely premature to declare what people, the economy and business can and can't cope with: the process of adaptation is just getting underway and may well involve accepting new realities at all levels of society.

+1

TheCitizen

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.

Matthew Parris a Tory mouthpiece is your idea of one of sanest people in British public life? The experts in the field know what's best, gobshítes like Parris need to STFU and like the rest of us do what they're told.

s7ryf3925pivug

BoatMad wrote: »

great , kick a country , where 50,000 healthcare people have volunteered their services .

Zero. My guess at the number of policy-makers among that 50k.

The nurses have been looking for more nurses to be hired for ages. They have been getting told over and over that there is no hiring freeze.

The other week, the HSE announced it would be lifting the hiring freeze of nurses.

We should have redundancy in our services in the first place, not relying on individual heroics to compensate.

Joe_ Public

threeball wrote: »

The constant search for endless economic growth has brought us to this. We are prepared to destroy the entire planet just to get richer. People are as much to blame as governments. Even rich countries like ours arent satisfied. We all want more. Earn more, consume more, travel more, live longer. No doubt this will all be forgotten quickly soon after it ends and we'll return to that endless race. Trump is the personification of this global mindset

100%. Unfortunately we seem to have needed a pandemic to bring it home to us. Hopefully we dont need climate catastrophe to show it is probably already too late.

I understand the outrage here against the blase notion some express for our elderly and most vulnerable citizens. That is only human. However, while we express that disgust, and politicians can come out and claim we have no policy of abandoning any section of the population, what does that offer for overwhelmed doctors facing life or death situations in hospitals every day? Nothing whatsoever. Thats the reality we have created and have to confront or else nothing gets learned.

TheCitizen

kowloon wrote: »

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.

This.

I've seen a lot of it on this site in recent times.

This was a site that I usually used to frequent to chat about football, I had no idea what a cesspit of unrepresentative Right wing loons that proliferates on here. There was a lot of comments supportive of that idiot Johnson's original stupid herd immunity without a vaccine plan that he has since backtracked on. And even though the Tories have backtracked on their utter stupidity we still get lots of comments like the op on this thread supporting I'm alright jack Rightist' like Matthew Parris.

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

Matthew Parris a Tory mouthpiece is your idea of one of sanest people in British public life? The experts in the field know what's best, gobshítes like Parris need to STFU and like the rest of us do what they're told.

Classic Tory "me, me, me" bolloxology. The elderly should kindly shove off because they're a drain on resources, they've one foot in the grave anyway etc. We're seeing a truly ugly mentality emerging from the privileged and wilfully ignorant.

The most vulnerable people might be our parents, but let's conveniently overlook that because the economy is all that matters. I regard the OP's stance as deeply contemptible, almost in line with a few bitter publicans I've had the displeasure to read about recently.

AulWan

AulWan wrote: »

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.

It’s not that old people are simply disposable. But a young person should be prioritised 100% of the time. They may have many more years ahead of them. If given the choice, I’m sure most old people would step aside to allow a young person to live. Older people have already lived the majority of their lives.

Put it this way, I’m 33. If there was 1 bed and it was between me or a 10 year old, I’d step aside.

threeball

Joe_ Public wrote: »

100%. Unfortunately we seem to have needed a pandemic to bring it home to us. Hopefully we dont need climate catastrophe to show it is probably already too late.

I understand the outrage here against the blase notion some express for our elderly and most vulnerable citizens. That is only human. However, while we express that disgust, and politicians can come out and claim we have no policy of abandoning any section of the population, what does that offer for overwhelmed doctors facing life or death situations in hospitals every day? Nothing whatsoever. Thats the reality we have created and have to confront or else nothing gets learned.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll learn the lesson. We don't need 50% more planes in the sky, yet that's the plan. We don't need **** toys with a kids meal that get fcuked in landfill after 20 mins. We don't need to import beef from the Amazon or palm oil from Borneo but it will continue so our companies can grow and people consume more. Both world wars were followed by periods of huge economic growth. The roaring twenties and the golden age of 50s and 60s. I expect this time we'll see the same.

joe40

Cilldara_2000 wrote: »

This is very true. Nobody can accurately predict exactly what the outcome will be. On the optimistic side, as a species we have always managed to muddle through all sorts of disasters and crises in the past. We will do the same now while hopefully keeping as many people alive as possible.

Yeah, consider ww2, millions dead, cities completely destroyed, Japanese cities destroyed by atomic bomb. Within a few years economies were booming, cities rebuilt. Human society is resilient.

KyussB

It's not a dichotomy between the old and the young. Throwing people off the edge of society, through persistent unemployment, is a choice.
Unemployment during recessions is never necessary - governments always have the ability to employ people in New Deal style projects, to e.g. undertake massive infrastructure projects to fight our countributions to climate change.

A Job Guarantee policy. combined with efforts to elimate our carbon emissions, can make New Deal style economics a permanent policy - and eliminate most of the economic harm to ordinary people, that occurs during recessions.

Look at the enormous amounts of money being thrown at income and industry supports, in response to this crisis - there are bailouts coming, too (from new banking crises, as economies teeter), and gigantic amounts of money will be made available for them. It's simply a lie that the money isn't there for public spending.

TheCitizen

threeball wrote: »

The constant search for endless economic growth has brought us to this. We are prepared to destroy the entire planet just to get richer. People are as much to blame as governments. Even rich countries like ours arent satisfied. We all want more. Earn more, consume more, travel more, live longer. No doubt this will all be forgotten quickly soon after it ends and we'll return to that endless race. Trump is the personification of this global mindset

Joe_ Public wrote: »

100%. Unfortunately we seem to have needed a pandemic to bring it home to us. Hopefully we dont need climate catastrophe to show it is probably already too late.

I understand the outrage here against the blase notion some express for our elderly and most vulnerable citizens. That is only human. However, while we express that disgust, and politicians can come out and claim we have no policy of abandoning any section of the population, what does that offer for overwhelmed doctors facing life or death situations in hospitals every day? Nothing whatsoever. Thats the reality we have created and have to confront or else nothing gets learned.

Some good points here. Good to see it's not just a cesspit of stupid short sighted ultimately self defeating I'm alright Jack Rightist' around here:)

threeball

joe40 wrote: »

Yeah, consider ww2, millions dead, cities completely destroyed, Japanese cities destroyed by atomic bomb. Within a few years economies were booming, cities rebuilt. Human society is resilient.

We're no different than ants. The ant colony gets smashed and 10s of thousands die. Within minutes they're back rebuilding and doing exactly as they were before their nest was destroyed. We all just drop back in to the habits we're used to.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’s not that old people are simply disposable. But a young person should be prioritised 100% of the time. They may have many more years ahead of them. If given the choice, I’m sure most old people would step aside to allow a young person to live. Older people have already lived the majority of their lives.

Put it this way, I’m 33. If there was 1 bed and it was between me or a 10 year old, I’d step aside.

I dont think you can have this conversation without reference to the ravaging of health services under austerity, and even going back to previous governments led by labour to be accurate, or to the fact there are 1000s people in America who wont go near a hospital because they believe it will cost them money they dont have. These are not the signs of enlightened societies imho.

jam_mac_jam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It’s not that old people are simply disposable. But a young person should be prioritised 100% of the time. They may have many more years ahead of them. If given the choice, I’m sure most old people would step aside to allow a young person to live. Older people have already lived the majority of their lives.

Put it this way, I’m 33. If there was 1 bed and it was between me or a 10 year old, I’d step aside.

I wouldn't. Unless it was my own child.

TheCitizen

Deleted User wrote: »

Classic Tory "me, me, me" bolloxology. The elderly should kindly shove off because they're a drain on resources, they've one foot in the grave anyway etc. We're seeing a truly ugly mentality emerging from the privileged and wilfully ignorant.

The most vulnerable people might be our parents, but let's conveniently overlook that because the economy is all that matters. I regard the OP's stance as deeply contemptible, almost in line with a few bitter publicans I've had the displeasure to read about recently.

Yep the op is a disgrace as is his 70 year old hero who wrote the article he linked to.