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

Dinarius

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.

IvoryTower

I vote to keep my parents and be poor, I can live with that

It's not even my parent tbh, my missus is high risk, all my brothers and son have asthma. **** the money tbh

Lives > *

Mental health is just an industry now. People having to stay in for a while doesn’t constitute a real mental issue.

alchemist33

Even if you believe that it's only old people who get sick, which it isn't, you'd better hope you don't have a car crash or develop appendicitis while this is going on, because the hospitals will be swamped.

ZX7R

It's not just as simple as saving the old or protecting them ,it's to keep them as safe so the pressure is less on the hospitals other people will get sick young and old from other illnesses accident's ECT.
It's a case of try and keep everyone as safe as possible

somesoldiers

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

This is a very quickly escalating issue right now and we are very much still in a reactive state.
The measures put in place are to slow the illness down so we can try to cope. If the hospitals can’t cope, lots more people will die.
We need to give it time to see if the measures taken actually work.

Ultimately though, life is for living, not just surviving.

We may get to a point were we have to just face this thing head on and accept the casualties.

But let’s see if we can stop this thing in a humane way first.

Maxpfizer

IvoryTower wrote: »

I vote to keep my parents and be poor, I can live with that

It's not even my parent tbh, my missus is high risk, all my brothers and son have asthma. **** the money tbh

To be fair, the OP is talking about long term and specifically mentions that.

So if your parents are in the vulnerable age range then long term they aren't going to always be around.

Similarly people with underlying conditions who are at risk now will also be at risk in the long term if being poor is the long term consequence.

Poor people tend to do worse in terms of access to healthcare and life expectancy etc.

So there would be a trade off there in that being poor in the future would also be a risk factor. Though presumably not nearly as high as rolling the dice with COVID-19.

SEPT 23 1989

If we can't protect our old and vulnerable we will have completely failed as a civilised society

Maxpfizer

Maxpfizer wrote: »

To be fair, the OP is talking about long term and specifically mentions that.

So if your parents are in the vulnerable age range then long term they aren't going to always be around.

Similarly people with underlying conditions who are at risk now will also be at risk in the long term if being poor is the long term consequence.

Poor people tend to do worse in terms of access to healthcare and life expectancy etc.

So there would be a trade off there in that being poor in the future would also be a risk factor. Though presumably not nearly as high as rolling the dice with COVID-19.

Probably should just round up all the old and sick and gas them so. Seeing as they won’t be around forever.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

Our species didn't get this far, by rolling over and allowing a virus to win!

Being passive and allowing this thing to just run through our population, is not any kind of strategy at all... people can use whatever term they wish... "Herd immunity" etc etc.

But I just call those type of strategies "giving up"... That's why they're such unpalatable ideas. Most people want to go down swinging, even if they might lose the fight.

So we should do what we have always done as a species! Keep trying to survive, even if it's against crappy odds!

kowloon

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

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.

Salary Negotiator

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.

Are your parents alive? Are any of your family members in high risk categories?

Maxpfizer

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.

I would reckon that behind the scenes most governments will have discussed this to some extent.

So the measures taking place now will definitely cause long-term damage but this will have been weighed against the long and short term damage of basically doing nothing.

Morally I think we can't just let people die and even politicians and governments have a moral obligation to the people.

Maybe some uncaring robot AI would decide "let it spread and deal with the consequences short term to save the long term future".

I don't think ANY western government could do that and get away with it though. In so many ways it would be reprehensible to sit and do nothing. History would not look kindly on those who just said "let the old and vulnerable die".

The future is unknown basically so there is always a chance that the action taken now will not be as disastrous as you fear. However, there will almost certainly be many indirect deaths from situations such as suicide and potential poverty etc.

There isn't really any way to absolutely guarantee a "good" outcome here. Probably there isn't a "good" solution here at all.

The morally correct thing to do is, in my opinion, do everything we can now and then also try to solve the problems in the future too.

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.

Sticking to this long term just won’t happen.

It’s just a way to try delay the illness so hospitals can cope and we figure out next steps.

Right now, the world is just like a heavyweight boxer that got floored and managed to get back up. We just need to hang in there for now.

splinter65

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Probably should just round up all the old and sick and gas them so. Seeing as they won’t be around forever.

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.

kowloon

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.

Give it a rest.

I'll speculate that the OP isn't the most altruistic individual here. I'm all for preserving the lives of my loved ones, the economy doesn't enter into the equation over next few weeks while crisis escalates. Short-term financial pain for long-term gain of humanity.

The most "extremely dangerous" mentality is showing indifference towards the vulnerable and elderly.

Salary Negotiator

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.

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?

Sam Hain

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

I have to laugh cause otherwise I'd cry.

Maxpfizer

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Probably should just round up all the old and sick and gas them so. Seeing as they won’t be around forever.

Well, that escalated quickly.

It's true that there will likely be severe long term consequences to the actions we are taking now.

It's a balancing act and we have not yet seen how all this is going to play out.

nthclare

Being a bit wired negatively myself and since I was a kid I often though about wars, doomsday scenarios and fear of losing my loved ones etc


Drank and drugged from 1992 until 2003, gave up that off it all 17 years now.
But the fear always lingered and over the years I bought power tools, fishing line, rods reels, Bush craft tools never used the bushcraft stuff to be honest as im a 9 to 5 Monday to Friday guy and entertained my son at weekends.
He's nearly 19 now.

So I've more time on my hands he's doing his own thing most weekends.
So im laid after 13 years on the job... But they're taking us back when this subsides.

Living rurally ain't necessarily going to shield me 100% but im well stocked up and have square miles of limestone carst landscape and Hazel Woods just over my boundary wall and most of it is common land, the commons in the Burren.
And the beaches and headlands are a 15 minute drive away.

So im going to do the bushcraft thing and make a story about it,

I always wanted to do it, from watching guys in America/Turkey and Nordic countries getting into the woods etc.

I've my money all sorted for bills etc and food.

Cars filled up and ill top it up every time it goes to 3 quarters full.
Just to have a full tank.

Getting back to sculpture too and using shells etc to enhance the bathroom instead of tiling around the mirrors ill shell it.

Now is the time to be creative, supportive and live fully if you can.

Our governments and experts are obviously all sitting down behind closed doors weighing up all the information they have and predicting the short, medium and long term plans.

Isolation can’t go on for a long period.

growleaves

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.

I don't agree with that. Is the point of the thread to discuss the issue raised by the OP or to cast aspersions on people's motivations?

I can make money sitting here at my desk at home. What I'm concerned about is open-ended economic damage leading to food shortages, which will kill elderly and vulnerable people SUCH AS my father in his 70s who is currently staying in around-the-clock so he doesn't get Covid-19.

splinter65

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.

Again what your describing is capitalism/neo liberal ideology not socialism but hey you never let facts get in the way when posting before why start now.

kowloon

nthclare wrote: »

Getting back to sculpture too and using shells etc to enhance the bathroom instead of tiling around the mirrors ill shell it.

Now is the time to be creative, supportive and live fully if you can.

Was that a Demolition Man reference?

Runaways

nthclare wrote: »

Being a bit wired negatively myself and since I was a kid I often though about wars, doomsday scenarios and fear of losing my loved ones etc


Drank and drugged from 1992 until 2003, gave up that off it all 17 years now.
But the fear always lingered and over the years I bought power tools, fishing line, rods reels, Bush craft tools never used the bushcraft stuff to be honest as im a 9 to 5 Monday to Friday guy and entertained my son at weekends.
He's nearly 19 now.

So I've more time on my hands he's doing his own thing most weekends.
So im laid after 13 years on the job... But they're taking us back when this subsides.

Living rurally ain't necessarily going to shield me 100% but im well stocked up and have square miles of limestone carst landscape and Hazel Woods just over my boundary wall and most of it is common land, the commons in the Burren.
And the beaches and headlands are a 15 minute drive away.

So im going to do the bushcraft thing and make a story about it,

I always wanted to do it, from watching guys in America/Turkey and Nordic countries getting into the woods etc.

I've my money all sorted for bills etc and food.

Cars filled up and ill top it up every time it goes to 3 quarters full.
Just to have a full tank.

Getting back to sculpture too and using shells etc to enhance the bathroom instead of tiling around the mirrors ill shell it.

Now is the time to be creative, supportive and live fully if you can.

That sounds brilliant. Good for you.

kowloon

growleaves wrote: »

I don't agree with that. Is the point of the thread to discuss the issue raised by the OP or to cast aspersions on people's motivations?

I can make money sitting here at my desk at home. What I'm concerned about is open-ended economic damage leading to food shortages, which will kill elderly and vulnerable people SUCH AS my father in his 70s who is currently staying in around-the-clock so he doesn't get Covid-19.

I'm not saying everyone making the economic argument is doing it out of greed, but I am saying the greedy are pretty fond of the argument.
I honestly don't think food shortages will be a problem, although I can see shortages of particular foods being a problem. Think bananas during the Emergency.

Manach

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.

Maxpfizer

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Well, that escalated quickly.

It's true that there will likely be severe long term consequences to the actions we are taking now.

It's a balancing act and we have not yet seen how all this is going to play out.

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

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.