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

revelman

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.

I find a lot of the discussion on the thread a bit strange. Has anyone actually read Parris’s article? I think our current approach is the best one and I disagree with Parris but he is being completely misrepresented here. His argument is extremely tentative and cautious (he keeps saying ‘what do I know’) but he explores the option of cocooning the elderly as an alternative to our current more general approach. He talks about his own parents saying that he wouldn’t have wanted to sacrifice a day of their lives.

I think we are all too quick to pile in on commentators if we think they are on the “other side” to us politically. In all times, but especially in a time of crisis, I think we should be open to all types of arguments, consider them, and if they are wrong, that’s fine but at least hear them out. He is right to say that an economic depression will lead to suffering for many people. But as I said, I still think that we are doing the right thing with our current strategy of trying to mitigate this virus.

J_1980

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.

If the mental health crisis is caused by Shinners fearing for their free gaffs.... who would have thought sich a tragedy has a positive element

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

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

Humanity is screwed if other people feel the same...
You’d actually allow a 10 year old to die as long as you were looked after?

threeball

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

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

I would. Nothing worse than seeing someone who hadn't a chance to live die. I personally can't bare hearing about kids dying, turns my stomach. If it was them or me it would be me. No question

jam_mac_jam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Humanity is screwed if other people feel the same...
You’d actually allow a 10 year old to die as long as you were looked after?

Of course all of humanity feels the same way. It's very easy to say that you would give your life for a random ten year old the reality is somewhat different.

It's called the survival instinct.

Of course I would let a stranger die over me. Of course.

threeball

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Of course all of humanity feels the same way. It's very easy to say that you would give your life for a random ten year old the reality is somewhat different.

Of course I would let a stranger die over me. Of course.

No they don't.

TheCitizen

TheCitizen wrote: »

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

There are heartless people out there who cannot look beyond their noses, as we've witnessed in this thread. It's necessary to take stringent measures to control a virus that could potentially wipe out thousands in this country, but some simply cannot sit still for a few weeks. The selfish mentality is pathetic, whatever happened to caring about your fellow person.

TheCitizen

revelman wrote: »

I find a lot of the discussion on the thread a bit strange. Has anyone actually read Parris’s article? I think our current approach is the best one and I disagree with Parris but he is being completely misrepresented here. His argument is extremely tentative and cautious (he keeps saying ‘what do I know’) but he explores the option of cocooning the elderly as an alternative to our current more general approach. He talks about his own parents saying that he wouldn’t have wanted to sacrifice a day of their lives.

I think we are all too quick to pile in on commentators if we think they are on the “other side” to us politically. In all times, but especially in a time of crisis, I think we should be open to all types of arguments, consider them, and if they are wrong, that’s fine but at least hear them out. He is right to say that an economic depression will lead to suffering for many people. But as I said, I still think that we are doing the right thing with our current strategy of trying to mitigate this virus.

We need to cocoon eventually in conjunction with the current approach. Parris is right about one thing when he says - ‘what do I know’
.

Parris is just another former Tory party ahole with an uninformed opinion yet the op describes him as “one of the sanest people in British public life”. Give us a break.

jam_mac_jam

threeball wrote: »

I would. Nothing worse than seeing someone who hadn't a chance to live die. I personally can't bare hearing about kids dying, turns my stomach. If it was them or me it would be me. No question

You are a better person then me so because I can honestly say i would not give my life for a stranger.

joe40

This thread has a very strange title. Over who exactly are "favouring the old and vulnerable" over who exactly?

begbysback

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.

Its not a long term strategy, its purpose is to limit damage until doctors & scientists find a solution, which they currently are.

TheCitizen

J_1980 wrote: »

If the mental health crisis is caused by Shinners fearing for their free gaffs.... who would have thought sich a tragedy has a positive element

This comment says a lot about the make up of the mindset of a particular cohort on this site. Strange and creepy. They seem enamoured with Brexiteer type Tories and Trump. Would be more at home somewhere like Stormfront with a few modifications re views on Palestine or others perhaps.

revelman

TheCitizen wrote: »

We need to cocoon eventually in conjunction with the current approach. Parris is right about one thing when he says - ‘what do I know’
.

Parris is just another former Tory party ahole with an uninformed opinion yet the op describes him as “one of the sanest people in British public life”. Give us a break.

I don’t know much about him if I’m honest. But he is writing an opinion piece for a newspaper. Our response to this crisis is being led by science and that is the way it should be. But there is also a big political component to this as an economic depression will have devastating consequences for everyone. I think people should be allowed to have an opinion. I’d rather have as many different opinions as possible feed into any debate so we can weigh everything up and then agree on the best course of action. I just don’t understand the level of vitriol when his article is quite nuanced.

TheCitizen

revelman wrote: »

I don’t know much about him if I’m honest. But he is writing an opinion piece for a newspaper. Our response to this crisis is being led by science and that is the way it should be. But there is also a big political component to this as an economic depression will have devastating consequences for everyone. I think people should be allowed to have an opinion. I’d rather have as many different opinions as possible feed into any debate so we can weigh everything up and then agree on the best course of action. I just don’t understand the level of vitriol when his article is quite nuanced.

Right now we need a united support of the scientific approach as you describe it. We don't need know nothing former Tory hacks with their tuppence worth letting on they know what they're on about when they freely admit in the same article that they actually don't.:rolleyes: When we see a turn in the right direction then wider discussions can come back into focus.

You either do this or you don't and the likes of Matthew Parris is just sitting there bumping his gums. Silly stuff from the op to link to his ill informed article as if it had some import.

revelman

TheCitizen wrote: »

Right now we need a united support of the scientific approach as you describe it. We don't need know nothing former Tory hacks with their tuppence worth letting on they know what they're on about when they freely admit in the same article that they actually don't.:rolleyes: When we see a turn in the right direction then wider discussions can come back into focus.

You either do this or you don't and the likes of Matthew Parris is just sitting there bumping his gums. Silly stuff from the op to link to his ill informed article as if it had some import.

I would hope most are agreed that we follow what the mainstream scientific advice tells us. As a matter of interest, did you read the Parris article in full? I know it is behind a paywall so might be difficult to access.

gozunda

This thread really annoys me. :mad:

It's not just the elderly who are ending up in hospital ffs.

Its also younger people and all those with underlying issues.

The median age of those infected here was given as 43 years of age years just the other day.

That group are the children of the elderly and the parents of kids and teenagers.

With that cohort becoming infected - who is going to look after the young children etc?

If your partner gets sick - how does the other partner and children cope and stay safe?

The outbreak in Italy has affected a higher median age group - because they have more older people in their population.

Our population is much much younger

Be careful for what you wish for

growleaves

Silly stuff from the op to link to his ill informed article as if it had some import.

Since the epidemiological data around the profile of the victims has been suppressed we are all literally "ill informed" about the danger the virus poses.

Mad_maxx

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.

So it was officially denied.

Now I'm certain it's happening

TheCitizen

growleaves wrote: »

Since the epidemiological data around the profile of the victims has been suppressed we are all literally "ill informed" about the danger the virus poses.

Suppressed? Suppressed is a very strong term. Can you link to anything that supports your comment that; epidemiological data around the profile of the victims has been suppressed?

revelman

TheCitizen wrote: »

Suppressed? Suppressed is a very strong term. Can you link to anything that supports your comment that; epidemiological data around the profile of the victims has been suppressed?

I was wondering about that word suppressed too. Perhaps just the wrong choice of word? Maybe poster can explain...

splinter65

99nsr125 wrote: »

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

Ermmm no it’s not. It’s the idea that certain lives are less valuable then other lives. Abortion, euthanasia ... left wing policies.

Mad_maxx

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".

The "burden of recession" always falls on the middle class, that goes double for this country

The ultra wealthy nearly always get indeed richer after a crisis

Mad_maxx

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.

Everyone has responsibilities, those reliant on welfare also need to join the effort

We have too many sacred cows in this country

Bass Reeves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are heartless people out there who cannot look beyond their noses, as we've witnessed in this thread. It's necessary to take stringent measures to control a virus that could potentially wipe out thousands in this country, but some simply cannot sit still for a few weeks. The selfish mentality is pathetic, whatever happened to caring about your fellow person.

The figures are much more stark than that. In a controlled situation the hope is that we may keep the death toll below 1% of cases and to keep the number of cases down as well. This may mean that the number of deaths may be in the low thousands.

In an uncontrolled situation going for herd immunity like what was the UK's original a death toll of above 2% would happen. In Italy in places it approaches 10%. Just to put that into figures, to achieve herd immunity 60%+of the population would have to catch it. In such a situation 2.8 million people would get COVID19 with a death toll of 60k people. The number of deaths in an uncontrolled situation could be away higher if it hit 3-4% it would be 100k people.

This is why the UK is starting to get back into line with the rest of European countries. Over the next 2-3 months we will see the results of other countries actions and inactions

growleaves

I was wondering about that word suppressed too. Perhaps just the wrong choice of word? Maybe poster can explain...

Perhaps its a poor choice of words.

Not all the data about the profile of the victims is available (why not?), so its literally impossible for anyone - included perfectly qualified people, such as retired epidemologists - to form an opinion.

From a purely, scientific, disinterested perspective we shouldn't even be attempting to form an opinion.

We can trust the scientific establishment without knowing what they know, but we can't say that we are trusting in 'science'. We are trusting in conformance to authority, inclu. scientific authority. That's an important distinction to draw.

Mad_maxx

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.

That's fine, we differ when it comes to horrible choices in a war time like situation, you pretend that hard choices can be avoided

AulWan

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.

Good for you. But I don't agree with your view.

With age comes wisdom, and experience. It won't be the 20 year old somethings who'll figure out how to put the country back together when this is all over.

TheCitizen

revelman wrote: »

I would hope most are agreed that we follow what the mainstream scientific advice tells us.

Most are but you'll always get the type of eejit that supports Brexiteers or Trump who have a distrust of ”experts”. The op of this thread appears to be one of those types of eejit.

revelman wrote: »

As a matter of interest, did you read the Parris article in full? I know it is behind a paywall so might be difficult to access.

:pac: I'm not paying to read an article by some former Tory hack who admits to saying “What do I know?”. The gist of what he says is clear, it's the sort of bullshít that Johnson was coming out with a week ago who has since backtracked.

Mad_maxx

Antares35 wrote: »

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.

If you happen to have young children, i believe they should be prioritised ahead of myself

shesty

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?

No, I come down on the side of life goes on.And it will be only a few weeks at the end of it all.There are models around disease spread.But there are obviously a few points along the line where decisions must be made that balance public health vs public sanity vs the economoc side of things.
I am not hung up on vaccines myself, they are a future solution.I am wondering about the decision points in the immediate future.