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

revelman

growleaves wrote: »

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.

I know where you are coming from but the stakes are so high that we have to form an opinion. I think the choice to act cautiously is the best one in the face of uncertainty and what is coming out of Italy. Sometimes we just have to trust authoritative statements. If they turn out to be mistaken in time, fine, but we have to act now.

Mad_maxx

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.

Improving the health service involves politically unpalatable choices like closing hospitals in the likes of roscommon or ballinasloe, thus allowing consolidation and concentration of services

Add to that, the likes of nurses in Ireland earn about twice as much as their Italian counterparts

A much improved health service is achievable but up to now we did not want the necessary changes required to bring about such an improvement, that we elected "keep the local hospital" independent TD, s in droves is proof of this

Plenty of money was invested in the health service, it just either ended up in the pockets of workers in the system or in inefficient hospitals in small provincial towns

revelman

: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.[/QUOTE]

I used to be very like this when I was younger. But as I’ve got older and I’ve realised how many mistakes I’ve made in my life and how many things I’ve misunderstood, I’ve realised the important of keeping an open mind. Even if I disagree with someone politically I still try to hear them out because sometimes important insights come from the most surprising places. 9/10 times I might still think ‘feckin eejit’ in my head but sometimes I change my opinion. I think there is a risk in ‘othering’ another side and thinking that everything that comes out of their mouth is automatically rubbish. Just my opinion!

ILoveYourVibes

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.

We are not saving the vulnerable. We are saving the health service.

I wish people would get their heads around this.

The reason herd immunity doesn't work is because we are all going to get this virus probably at least ONCE during our lifetime anyway. Even after a vaccine etc. We are trying to fight this virus on OUR timetable.

We are trying to STAGGER the rate of infection. So that we all don't get infected at once. Because if that happens we will collapse the health system. And not just for this virus for everything cancer etc. And our economy with sick people.

It would overwhelm our health service and economy if we all got it at once.

Thus we use the term contain and DELAY. We are delaying its progress so that we are able to deal with the rate of infection.


If 800,000 people got infected this month how do you think we would do?

Japan managed to slow the rate of infection to 1000 in 2 months though social distancing.

And we are NOT in lockdown but if you don't follow social distancing THEY WILL HAVE TO LOCK US DOWN. And that will be tougher.

If you keep hoarding toilet roll they will put a curfew or ration us.


DO YOU WANT THEM TO CURFEW US? They WILL bring in the army and we won't get out at all unless we comply.

We have a choice ....comply with social distancing or they will lock us down.

And lock down will be MUCH tougher on mental health and the economy.

If we were to say ...lets all get it now get it over with ...the health system would collapse. If we ALL get it now the economy will collapse much much worse.

You think this govt SUDDENLY cares about the old ??? Get real.

We have half the beds Italy does no where near the amount of ventilators.

You cannot escape this.

There IS no other way.

Bass Reeves

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

If 20 elderly people have an average life expectancy of 10 years and a 20year old has a life expectancy of 70-75 years, which should we prioritize. But if the 20 year old has mental health issues that will be aggravated by social distancing and an economic downturn, will the next economic downturn cause difficulty for them.

In reality the government strategy is about preserving life not about choosy older people over younger people

AulWan

Money, money, money.... thats all I'm hearing.

So there is an economic downtown and this generation of twenty year old suffers some financial difficulties for the next ten years.

Well, boo hoo.

Most of us who lived through last two recessions are well used to it. They'll get used to it too.

Not worth killing their grandparents for.

Sleeper12

The virus can kill all ages. Just because the vast majority are over 60 doesn't mean that younger people don't die from it. The age groups it kills can alter over time too.

You need to look at the big picture here. Stopping or slowing the spread of this might stop it mutating into a version that kills 80 percent of the under 60 population. The elderly might be immune to the next mutation. Long term what the entire world is doing might save more young people's lives than old people's lives.

Every country in the effected world is fighting this in the same way. Even the UK eventually realised that the rest of the world was right and its approach was wrong. Is every country wrong? Is the WHO wrong?

KyussB

It's just going to remain lost in the noise, but: A recession doesn't mean trashing a new generation into joblessness and financial insecurity - it's a political choice, to let people remain unemployed long-term.

The big-guns will come out, to throw money at banks when they teeter, and in the present at business/income supports - so it is a lie that the money isn't available.
What we need to do is guarantee employment in recessions - New Deal style, with a permanent Job Guarantee - and have people work on eliminating our carbon emissions.

Persistent unemployment is a political choice, it is never neccessary.

Mad_maxx

Bass Reeves wrote: »

If 20 elderly people have an average life expectancy of 10 years and a 20year old has a life expectancy of 70-75 years, which should we prioritize. But if the 20 year old has mental health issues that will be aggravated by social distancing and an economic downturn, will the next economic downturn cause difficulty for them.

In reality the government strategy is about preserving life not about choosy older people over younger people

If we arrive at a situation where there are not nearly enough intensive care beds, of course the twenty something should be prioritised

Blaze420

KyussB wrote: »

It's just going to remain lost in the noise, but: A recession doesn't mean trashing a new generation into joblessness and financial insecurity - it's a political choice, to let people remain unemployed long-term.

The big-guns will come out, to throw money at banks when they teeter, and in the present at business/income supports - so it is a lie that the money isn't available.
What we need to do is guarantee employment in recessions - New Deal style, with a permanent Job Guarantee - and have people work on eliminating our carbon emissions.

Persistent unemployment is a political choice, it is never neccessary.

I think carbon emissions and all that climate stuff is firmly in the back seat for now don’t you? Who honestly cares in the slightest about any of that in a time like this?

growleaves

Money, money, money.... thats all I'm hearing.

So there is an economic downtown and this generation of twenty year old suffers some financial difficulties for the next ten years.

Well, boo hoo.

Most of us who lived through last two recessions are well used to it. They'll get used to it too.

Not worth killing their grandparents for.

If it was just a case of lives vs. money we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Tanking the economy in almost every country of the world simulaneously will cost lots of lives, thats the point.

ILoveYourVibes

growleaves wrote: »

Tanking the economy in almost every country of the world simulaneously .

**** it lets do it!

Im feeling evil and destructive!

CtevenSrowder

AulWan wrote: »

Money, money, money.... thats all I'm hearing.

So there is an economic downtown and this generation of twenty year old suffers some financial difficulties for the next ten years.

Well, boo hoo.

Most of us who lived through last two recessions are well used to it. They'll get used to it too.

Not worth killing their grandparents for.

I see you still have your head in the sand. And your selfish mindset. It may well be worse then a recession and turn into a depression if this lasts too long. Those 20 somethings are about to live through their 2nd recession themselves.

threeball

Blaze420 wrote: »

I think carbon emissions and all that climate stuff is firmly in the back seat for now don’t you? Who honestly cares in the slightest about any of that in a time like this?

It should be in everyone mind because this is a microcosm of what's in store for us if we don't deal with that. People need to realise that this is bad but that will be much worse. Once this is gone that fact will be forgotten.

Maxpfizer

AulWan wrote: »

Money, money, money.... thats all I'm hearing.

So there is an economic downtown and this generation of twenty year old suffers some financial difficulties for the next ten years.

Well, boo hoo.

Most of us who lived through last two recessions are well used to it. They'll get used to it too.

Not worth killing their grandparents for.

I don't really understand this flippant attitude towards it.

"Well, boo hoo."

Ireland already has a lot of people who are extremely poor. You can see plenty of homeless around, people with serious drug problems, people just struggling to get by. All caused by a lack of money, opportunity and the general hopelessness that comes with that.

A massive economic downturn means that more people than ever before will find themselves in those dire situations. Some of those people would have been just fine otherwise.

Its serious stuff.

"Well, boo hoo."

It feels like you are imagining the only people who will be affected financially is well off 20 somethings who might have to settle for only one vacation a year instead of two.

Some people will be seriously, seriously, impacted by an economic downturn and it will be far worse than suffering "some financial difficulties".

If anything it will be those 20 and 30 somethings in cushy office jobs that are least affected.

People who were struggling to make ends meet as it was a month ago will find themselves in very dire circumstances very soon.

Then what?

"Well, boo hoo."
That's your response?

AulWan

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I see you still have your head in the sand. And your selfish mindset. It may well be worse then a recession and turn into a depression if this lasts too long. Those 20 somethings are about to live through their 2nd recession themselves.

And as I see it, yours is the selfish mindset. Both on this and the other thread.

And as I said on the last thread I find it ironic you're so very, very concerned about potential growth in suicide rates amongst the young, in an economic downturn yet speak so callously and casually about the lives of the sick and the elderly.

By the way, I asked my two 20+ year old kids which they'd prefer (having grown up during a recession). They both said they'd prefer if their grandparents were kept alive.

So happy to know I didn't rear selfish kids.

Sleeper12

Mad_maxx wrote:

If we arrive at a situation where there are not nearly enough intensive care beds, of course the twenty something should be prioritised

Why?
How do we decide? What about a twenty something who smokes like a chimney & has endangered himself? Why prioritise him against a 60 year old non smoker or drinker?

Twenty something who has never done a days work in his life. Hash, PlayStation and dole. Should he get better treatment than a 60 year old who worked every day of his life and paid taxes all his life?

On the extreme level, a twenty something junkie or drug dealer, thief, rapist, murderer etc. Where do you draw the line. Who decides? Age definitely shouldn't be a deciding factor. Well unless you are talking about someone in their 90s

Blaze420

threeball wrote: »

It should be in everyone mind because this is a microcosm of what's in store for us if we don't deal with that. People need to realise that this is bad but that will be much worse. Once this is gone that fact will be forgotten.

To be totally honest I don’t care about it, didn’t before this and won’t after.

AulWan

Maxpfizer wrote: »

"Well, boo hoo."
That's your response?

Don't twist my words.

"Boo Hoo" was my response to those who think it is preferable to allow elderly and sick people to die, to prevent or minimise an economic downtown.

Another of whom has just appeared on thread, see above.

People will survive another economic downturn. Death is permanent.

The White Wolf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

I would tell these people to harden up a bit to be honest. I know that isn't a PC response but good god, how selfish can someone be?

Perhaps they'd prefer the catastrophe the likes of the UK, New York, Italy and Spain are facing?

The thing about the vulnerable as well is this; they might not know it, but the people complaining could well be one of those in the vulnerable category. A lot of underlying illnesses can go undiagnosed for a long time so really, they should see lockdown and isolation as a favour to themselves as much as it is to the elderly and sick.

I got shafted by the 2008 recession and will happily take another shafting if it means we can avoid what's happening in other countries.

Maxpfizer

AulWan wrote: »

Don't twist my words.

"Boo Hoo" was my response to those who think it is preferable to allow elderly and sick people to die, to prevent or minimise an economic downtown.

Another of whom has just appeared on thread, see above.

People will survive another economic downturn. Death is permanent.

Yet you've no problem twisting the words of others. See your first paragraph.

Not everyone will survive another economic downturn. Depending on the severity of course.

ITman88

On this thread lots of posters are strongly trying to discredit anyone who shows concern for the economic effects of what’s happening.

Lots of posters accuse those considering the economic devastation and change of life quality for decades ahead (so we can maintain health in the short term future) as being completely self centred and trying to bog the thread down with sentiment.(Then oddly suggest they are more worthy of life than a child)

We need to contain the virus as best as we possibly can.
And afterwards ensure health infrastructure is in place worldwide to ensure the next virus doesn’t cause repeat economic effects.

What is evident is that coping mechanism’s are lacking in modern society.

People are going to die of this virus, but stopping this virus won’t stop death, our parents and grandparents are not going to be here forever. We need to do our best to protect them now, but it’s not selfish to look out for ourselves and consider what future we will have

ITman88

ITman88 wrote: »

On this thread lots of posters are strongly trying to discredit anyone who shows concern for the economic effects of what’s happening.

Lots of posters accuse those considering the economic devastation and change of life quality for decades ahead (so we can maintain health in the short term future) as being completely self centred and trying to bog the thread down with sentiment.(Then oddly suggest they are more worthy of life than a child)

We need to contain the virus as best as we possibly can.
And afterwards ensure health infrastructure is in place worldwide to ensure the next virus doesn’t cause repeat economic effects.

What is evident is that coping mechanism’s are lacking in modern society.

People are going to die of this virus, but stopping this virus won’t stop death, our parents and grandparents are not going to be here forever. We need to do our best to protect them now, but it’s not selfish to look out for ourselves and consider what future we will have

What will be will be.
When there’s lives at stake, the economy is so far down my list that it barely registers.

ITman88

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

What will be will be.
When there’s lives at stake, the economy is so far down my list that it barely registers.

And that’s fine.
But it’s also fine for people to consider the economy, everyone has issues.
All our lives are at stake, and always will be

CtevenSrowder

AulWan wrote: »

And as I see it, yours is the selfish mindset. Both on this and the other thread.

And as I said on the last thread I find it ironic you're so very, very concerned about potential growth in suicide rates amongst the young, in an economic downturn yet speak so callously and casually about the lives of the sick and the elderly.

By the way, I asked my two 20+ year old kids which they'd prefer (having grown up during a recession). They both said they'd prefer if their grandparents were kept alive.

So happy to know I didn't rear selfish kids.

And again, you miss the point. The onus will be on those who are vulnerable to self isolate, as opposed to the majority who are not. You can't seem to grasp this. They'll do what we are all doing now.

It is not a case of depression v your grandparents dying.

And anyway, what did yiu think your children would reply? What a silly question to ask. Hopefully you've raised children who have the ability to think longterm, because you certainly can't.

Xertz

It’s basically a global biological natural disaster and we can deal with it a lot better than some of the horrors previous generations had to deal with wars. It’s a virus. Nobody is raining weapons from the sky on us. Our infrastructure is still intact and things like telecommunication networks are making it possible to continue to work and keep in touch in ways that were unimaginable even in the early 2000s.

All any of us can do is try to focus on what we can do. Dwelling on what we can’t or dwelling on unknowable unknowns isn’t going to help our mental health at all.
A lot of stuff has changed and will change further but we can cope and we have to.

Also the fact that is is a global issue means that economic solutions will also have to be global. There’s no comparison to the 2008 recession which was a market glitch, caused by local bubbles in some countries. This one is going to require a complete reset of the economy by huge institutions like the ECB in our case.

I think you’re going to see something as fundamental as the Bretton Woods solutions that emerged after WWII.

My view is right now avoid the British tabloids, Brexiteer types, Fox News and others, the twitter disaster mongers and all of that stuff. They get off on fear and are more toxic than the virus in some ways and are way to easy to encounter.

Focus on the facts and what you can do. That’s all any of us really can do in a situation like this. We will get it resolved. It’s just going to be a hard slog, but one that will deliver a result in the end, which might not be that far away, particularly if workable drugs appear in the months ahead.

A vaccine might be a while off, but there’s a lot of hope about anti viral and immunomodulatory drugs making this a hell of a lot more manageable. Right now all of the best R&D humanity has is being thrown at this problem and the solution will be technical.

All we can do now is try damn hard to minimise spread.

Beasty

While I am happy with a "decent" economy, this concept of GDP growth and the like is simply unsustainable long term. This pandemic may well reset people's expectations. However the standard of living once we are through this (and probably even as we progress through it) is still going to be better than previous generations enjoyed.

Arguably this reset is long overdue even if the circumstances are pretty horrible. We all need to accept we cannot and should not expect an ever increasing standard of living without essentially depriving future generations of similar qualities of life.

Pseudonym121

The absolute worst case scenario in Britain would involve an excess mortality of over 5 million over the next 12 months. Their best case scenario with their previous plan was about 250,000 dead with 500,000 being a much more likely number.

I find it difficult to believe that the damage to the economy would equate to that worst case scenario ( which would be made more likely by them not cocooning etc ). Parris doesn't understand medicine, epidemiology or virology if this is the sort of twaddle he is writing.

And FYI I'm perfectly fine with allowing people to die if economically justified. Life does not have infinite value. The NHS and HSE have absolutely quantified the value of human life using QALYs ( Quality Adjusted Life Years ). In the UK a QALY is equal to about 15,000 Pounds. What this means is that if it costs more than 15,000 pounds per year to keep you alive they should let you die. If you will live for 20 years with a one shot treatment then that treatment should cost less than 300,000 pounds.

Anyways, bottom line, the economic damage from up to 10% of the population dying in the next year with another 10% having interstitial lung disease/fibrotic complications and dying over the next 5 to 10 years would be far, far more than the economic damage which would occur from following the Singapore/Taiwan or even South Korean models.


It is rare that the better medical model is cheaper economically in the long term. We'd thus be foolish to choose the medically worse model which will be more expensive in the long term. Of course, when in groups people are often very foolish.

TheCitizen

Blaze420 wrote: »

To be totally honest I don’t care about it, didn’t before this and won’t after.

:pac: And there we have it in one sentence a representation of the amazing capacity of some people no matter how often they are told to be willfully ignorant and stupid.

Xertz

I would also say avoid absorbing too much from a narrow group of right wing, laissez faire, extreme economic liberals in England and (to a lesser extent) in the US. They’ve influential access to certain media and they are really not representative of the general public opinion or what is popularly acceptable in the U.K. or the USA.

Unfortunately, there’s always been an element like that who go into cold, calculating, ultra utilitarian economics. They don’t even understand the variables or the risks, yet they’re willing to write articles and comment with a tone of superiority because they’re basically wedded to a rather nasty ideology that is the last thing a society facing a crisis needs to be delving into.

My sense is it will be a lot more of the Dad’s Army spirit that drives the U.K. from this point on and those commentators will be rather rapidly pushed aside as that happens.