Why not just isolate people over 50 and the immunocompromised?

Harpon

A recent study has shown the vast majority of ICU patients are in these groups. The majority of people over 50 are retired anyway so the effect on the economy would be very little.

Why not just let the rest of us get it, take a couple of weeks off work to recover then back to normal. The amount of people under 50 needing hospitalisation would be minuscule.

What am I missing here?

Atlantic Dawn

I know of no able bodied person in my social circle between the age of 50-65 who is retired.

Harpon

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I know of no able bodied person in my social circle between the age of 50-65 who is retired.

Virtually everyone I know retired once they were about 55

osarusan

Harpon wrote: »

Virtually everyone I know retired once they were about 55

Sure they did.

Fann Linn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I know of no able bodied person in my social circle between the age of 50-65 who is retired.

The children are getting bored now by the looks of things!

GalwayGrrrrrl

A huge amount of experienced healthcare staff are 50+ - we need them more than ever at the moment and retired staff are coming back to work. 50+ isolation wouldn’t work.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Harpon wrote: »

A recent study has shown the vast majority of ICU patients are in these groups. The majority of people over 50 are retired anyway so the effect on the economy would be very little.

Why not just let the rest of us get it, take a couple of weeks off work to recover then back to normal. The amount of people under 50 needing hospitalisation would be minuscule.

What am I missing here?

How long for?

Harpon

osarusan wrote: »

Sure they did.

I work in a company with 1000 employees, I could count on my hand the number over 55

theteal

Oh, so it is a thing. . . .

Harpon

GalwayGrrrrrl wrote: »

A huge amount of experienced healthcare staff are 50+ - we need them more than ever at the moment and retired staff are coming back to work. 50+ isolation wouldn’t work.

We need them more than ever because they are looking after all the over 50s in the hospital with covid19

Masala

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

I know of no able bodied person in my social circle between the age of 50-65 who is retired.

... me neither.

Boggles

Oh goody, another edgelord "new" user thread.

Love these.

niallo27

50 is too young, move this age to 70 and over and maybe there is some validity to this.

Bowlardo

Harpon wrote: »

What am I missing here?

you're missing a good few sandwiches from the picnic you total bell end

whiskeyman

Harpon wrote: »

A recent study has shown the vast majority of ICU patients are in these groups. The majority of people over 50 are retired anyway so the effect on the economy would be very little.

Why not just let the rest of us get it, take a couple of weeks off work to recover then back to normal. The amount of people under 50 needing hospitalisation would be minuscule.

What am I missing here?

Why is this the case here then?
39.3% 0-55 age group admitted to ICU

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1244931026448777216

pjohnson

whiskeyman wrote: »

Why is this the case here then?
39.3% 0-55 age group admitted to ICU

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1244931026448777216

Best set it at over 24. Seems to be a jump at that point.

Kintarō Hattori

Harpon wrote: »

Virtually everyone I know retired once they were about 55

You must move in some special circles OP. Retiring by 55 for most would be a dream.

Harpon

whiskeyman wrote: »

Why is this the case here then?
39.3% 0-55 age group admitted to ICU

https://twitter.com/FergalBowers/status/1244931026448777216

That graph proves my point, 86 percent of ICU patients are over 45

Nollog

Deleted User wrote: »

You're missing some gray matter if you think "herd immunity" would be appropriate. Note the sudden abandonment of this stance by BoJo when the infection/death rate escalated quickly in the UK. Deliberately infecting majority of populace would vastly increase the risk of mortality to those on "right" side of fifty. Obesity, asthma, diabetes and other underlying conditions compromising the immune system in battle against Covid-19. And even those without as documented in some cases. "Get on with it" my rear end, you're in a minority of people at odds with reality.

It's not really herd immunity were after, were just trying to slowly have people get it while the hospitals aren't full. Same as why we're doing what we're doing now but ignoring a healthy person can infect their older parents etc.

/\/ollog

/\/ollog wrote: »

It's not really herd immunity were after, were just trying to slowly have people get it while the hospitals aren't full. Same as why we're doing what we're doing now but ignoring a healthy person can infect their older parents etc.

We're of a consensus, herd immunity has been debunked already.

I've just noticed the OP is a new account with a handful of posts, ergo off his troll-ey. There's zero point participating in this thread further, only giving the warped creature oxygen it desperately craves.

Nollog

Deleted User wrote: »

We're of a consensus, herd immunity has been debunked already.

I've just noticed the OP is a new account with a handful of posts, ergo off his troll-ey. There's zero point participating in this thread further, only giving the warped creature oxygen it desperately craves.

I've read people have relapsed after being confirmed recovered at least 4 different times, so yeah I'd say so.
Granted it's just internet "reports" so I don't know if it's accurate.

I see that a fair bit here op makes a single post and never comes back, like the "should I move in with my bf?" Thread...

FVP3

Harpon wrote: »

Virtually everyone I know retired once they were about 55

Thats highly unusual.

Harpon

/\/ollog wrote: »

It's not really herd immunity were after, were just trying to slowly have people get it while the hospitals aren't full. Same as why we're doing what we're doing now but ignoring a healthy person can infect their older parents etc.

Yes that’s why I am saying isolate older parents

Skyfloater

Deleted User wrote: »

We're of a consensus, herd immunity has been debunked already.

I've just noticed the OP is a new account with a handful of posts, ergo off his troll-ey. There's zero point participating in this thread further, only giving the warped creature oxygen it desperately craves.

About this "herd immunity has been debunked already" line, what happened to an infected species including mankind before 1796*? Did a new virus slowly but inevitably wipe out a carrier species? If this was the case there wouldn't be any life left on Earth.

* First vaccine discovered.

Harpon

Deleted User wrote: »

We're of a consensus, herd immunity has been debunked already.

.

This thread isn’t about herd immunity, it’s about isolating those most at risk of being hospitalised

Harpon

Bowlardo wrote: »

you're missing a good few sandwiches from the picnic you total bell end

Internet tough guy, that’s a new one

YFlyer

Are we talking about Greece here?

ger664

Harpon wrote: »

Virtually everyone I know retired once they were about 55

Can you run for election on this next time round. I wuill gladly vote for you so that I can draw my penison now instead of having to wait till I am 68

ironwalk

To follow your "logic" it would make more sense to isolate all males, with an above average BMI, who live in Dublin, over the age of 25years.

But, I guess we're not going to do that.

Tazz T

Harpon wrote: »

I work in a company with 1000 employees, I could count on my hand the number over 55

It sounds very much like your company operates ageist recruitment policies and is in contravention of Employment Equality Act. You should report them to Workplace Relations Commission.

Harpon

ironwalk wrote: »

To follow your "logic" it would make more sense to isolate all males, with an above average BMI, who live in Dublin, over the age of 25years.

But, I guess we're not going to do that.

No it wouldn’t, stop putting words in my mouth. Also I love how you put logic in inverted commas, as if using science and statistics is now considered some far out idea.

TaurenDruid

Harpon wrote: »

A recent study has shown the vast majority of ICU patients are in these groups. The majority of people over 50 are retired anyway so the effect on the economy would be very little.

Why not just let the rest of us get it, take a couple of weeks off work to recover then back to normal. The amount of people under 50 needing hospitalisation would be minuscule.

What am I missing here?

An ounce of common sense.

Given your post count, I'm assuming this is a troll post, though... 3/10, way too obvious.

easypazz

So plan B is to lock away all the over 65's under house arrest.

It has to be considered seriously.

Put procedures in place to supply them with food, water and heat.

If they choose to go out and about and die from this nobody to blame but themselves.

History Queen

Harpon wrote: »

A recent study has shown the vast majority of ICU patients are in these groups. The majority of people over 50 are retired anyway so the effect on the economy would be very little.

Why not just let the rest of us get it, take a couple of weeks off work to recover then back to normal. The amount of people under 50 needing hospitalisation would be minuscule.

What am I missing here?

What you are missing is people like me. I'm pregnant and am not taking the chance of longterm side effects on my unborn just because you cannot follow instructions.

I'm also not risking myself, my husband or our son. The potential longterm side effects are completely unknown. I'm not gambling with our health.

FVP3

Deleted User wrote: »

We're of a consensus, herd immunity has been debunked already.

I've just noticed the OP is a new account with a handful of posts, ergo off his troll-ey. There's zero point participating in this thread further, only giving the warped creature oxygen it desperately craves.

No, herd immunity works, it's just no good to "flatten the curve".

Kivaro

Harpon wrote: »

Virtually everyone I know retired once they were about 55

You mean in your virtual world.

drkpower

Harpon wrote: »

Yes that’s why I am saying isolate older parents

But then who would stop you from sticking your fork in your eye during your dinner, Ruprecht?

wexandproud

drkpower wrote: »

But then who would stop you from sticking your fork in your eye during your dinner, Ruprecht?

thanks . i needed a laugh

GreeBo

We could isolate them in large underground areas for extended periods....oh hang on, I'm thinking of graveyards.

Assetbacked

Allowing boomers to suffer while millenials get on with their lives? They would never allow this to happen!

irishgrover

Harpon wrote: »

A recent study has shown the vast majority of ICU patients are in these groups. The majority of people over 50 are retired anyway so the effect on the economy would be very little.

Why not just let the rest of us get it, take a couple of weeks off work to recover then back to normal. The amount of people under 50 needing hospitalisation would be minuscule.

What am I missing here?

• assume only 1400 under 45 years old have covid
• assume that 3 have died to date (under 45) - assume that in reality at least 6 of those will die (based on time gap between diagnosis and death)
• assume no restriction on under 45s
• assume with no restrictions on under 45s then growth rate is 30%

By end of April, approx 3.6 million under 45 years of age will have covid
approx 11,000 will be dead, probably many more due to pressure on hospitals etc

Note: Obviously this is really basic maths and not accurate
Note 2: What do you do or what are your social circles where you thing everyone over 50 is retired? are their jobs there?

Beasty

Harpon wrote: »

A recent study has shown the vast majority of ICU patients are in these groups. The majority of people over 50 are retired anyway so the effect on the economy would be very little.

I've a full-time job keeping you lot in order

Do this to me and I'll ban the lot of ye. Might then be an echo chamber, but it will be my echo chamber

:pac:

easypazz

History Queen wrote: »

What you are missing is people like me. I'm pregnant and am not taking the chance of longterm side effects on my unborn just because you cannot follow instructions.

I'm also not risking myself, my husband or our son. The potential longterm side effects are completely unknown. I'm not gambling with our health.

What long term side effects?

Its your choice to gamble with your health or not, lock your family away indefinitely if you want, its your choice.

Ande1975

Harpon wrote: »

A recent study has shown the vast majority of ICU patients are in these groups. The majority of people over 50 are retired anyway so the effect on the economy would be very little.

Why not just let the rest of us get it, take a couple of weeks off work to recover then back to normal. The amount of people under 50 needing hospitalisation would be minuscule.

What am I missing here?

Jesus I really hope the loss of life from this pandemic is minimal. I know NO ONE who is retired from 50 -65 and I know its no important right now but after forking out in USC for the 2008 crash, we will have to pay out for this. Money is going out to the disadvantaged which they deserve but we'll all be paying for this for a long long time.

Xertz

Harpon wrote: »

Virtually everyone I know retired once they were about 55

It would be relatively unusual to be retired at 50-55 these days. Gardai, and some public and civil servants used to have the option of taking very early retirement, but it wouldn't be all that common. No pension scheme would be very keen to pay out at 50. They wouldn't be able to fund it.

I can only assume you know a lot of public servants who were at the peak of their careers in the 1970s. As that pattern of retirement is not normal at the moment.

The state pension kicks in at 66 and the retirement age from next year is 67 and will move to 69.

50+ year olds, and even those over 70 are generally not in bad shape here. It's just a rather broad brushed precaution.

You have people starting new careers at 50, never mind retiring!

The average life expectancy for women is 84 and 80 for men. So you're talking about being retired for 34 years and that's only the average, some could be retired for 50 years at that rate.

At-risk groups are also including people with lung disorders, various heart disorders, immunosuppressed etc.

Also if you're looking at the group aged 50 to 68, you're talking about people at the peak of their careers - often senior managers with huge expertise and earning power relative to 20-30 year olds. You would destroy the economy for no reason, taking out some of the most production elements of it.

There will be plenty of medical professionals - doctors, nurses, physios, scientists, pathologists, senior health managers etc etc all in their 50s+ leading the battle against this thing, but you'd have them all off in cocooning ?!

SuperRabbit

19 year old with no underlying health condition died in UK yesterday.

aido79

Harpon wrote: »

A recent study has shown the vast majority of ICU patients are in these groups. The majority of people over 50 are retired anyway so the effect on the economy would be very little.

Why not just let the rest of us get it, take a couple of weeks off work to recover then back to normal. The amount of people under 50 needing hospitalisation would be minuscule.

What am I missing here?

I think you're missing school to be honest.

SuperRabbit

I can't find it now god damn but there were statistics on RTE or the Irish Times about the age range of the people who have died of this already in Ireland and a LOT of them were young. Ok, percentage-of -total-wise, it's small, but number wise it's huge, and we haven't even peaked yet.

People that would have been working and living and loving for another 60+ years and are dead because of this stupid virus.

SpannerMonkey

well a perfectly healthy 19 year old and 21 year old have died in the UK in the last few days . hows that for a reason .

https://www.scotsman.com/health/coronavirus/19-year-old-becomes-uks-youngest-healthy-virus-victim-2524339 (19 year old)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52041709 (21 year old)

SuperRabbit

+ if we all get infected 10-20% of us will need hospitalization and when 20% of people are in the hospital... well there's not space for 20% of the population to be in the hospital. It means people start dying en masse of every little thing like they did in the middle ages

dehydrated? dead
cancer? dead
appendix? dead
cut your finger and it got infected? dead
broke your arm? ooo sorry it went gangrenous in the waiting room, time to amputate

Harpon

Xertz wrote: »

You would destroy the economy for no reason, taking out some of the most production elements of it.

What do you think is happening with the economy right now?? Cocooning over 50s and those at risk would save the economy not destroy it.

This thread is hilarious, people are completely fine with everyone staying at home, but suggest only those at risk of hospitalisation do so and the pitchforks come out. You’d swear I had suggested we kill and eat old people the way people are reacting.

There’s so many people on this thread mouthing off to me, but just wait to you see what’s coming down the line for you as a result of cratering our economy and having to take on an extra 15 billion in debt......might soften your cough a bit once you realise the long term impact!