Why is it so complicated to daily find out the ages of those who passed?

Wibbs

Stewball wrote: »

Is a life worth less if the person is 70+ and has underlying conditions?

Not to be a dick, but in reality yes. I'm 52, am I "worth" less than an average 18 year old with a life ahead of them? Yes, frankly and by most metrics and those 18 year old's futures are currently being hammered by this, never mind younger kids, or parents paying mortgages and the like. Never mind those younger with underlying conditions in need of regular medical attention who are very much affected. This is certainly not the time to discover you have cancer for example, if it's discovered at all because of reduced services and putting it off.

Set against that is we can't risk hospitals and ICU capacities being overwhelmed. We can't risk, nor don't want to be Italy in March and April, because those issues above wiuld get even worse. It's a hard balance to strike and if we did open up more as we've seen the numbers start to climb and pretty rapidly.

timmyntc

Stewball wrote: »

Is a life worth less if the person is 70+ and has underlying conditions?

A 70+ year old person has lived a fairly full life - not that it's okay that they die, but it's wrong to stop everything and put everyone elses lives on hold just to try and squeeze out an extra year or two of that 70+ year old.

You might be giving an 80 year old man an extra year of life, but you've taken a year of life away from so many younger people. This past year people have basically put their lives on hold. It's not really living so much as it is existing.

charlietheminxx

The thinking that we can protect the vulnerable while the rest of us carry on like normal is seriously flawed. We can't protect anyone while there is widespread community transmission.

Also I think around third of our population has a "pre-existing condition" which can be something as simple as well-managed asthma or diabetes. Someone with a pre-existing condition who dies of Covid isn't necessarily someone who was at death's door beforehand and they shouldn't be treated as such.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Not to be a dick, but in reality yes. I'm 52, am I "worth" less than an average 18 year old with a life ahead of them? Yes, frankly and by most metrics and those 18 year old's futures are currently being hammered by this, never mind younger kids, or parents paying mortgages and the like.

Completely disagree with this. Its absolutely abhorrent to me that anyone would discuss what a life is worth or put a value on anyone's life based on their age.

Plus, it will not be 18 year olds "with a life ahead of them" who'll be paying for this. Not by a long shot. Most of them will spend on average the next 10 to 15 years living rent free in Mammy's, "saving" while people of our age, those in their forties and fifties, will be the ones who pay for this. Still of working age for another almost 20 years, by which stage the current crisis will be paid for and the current generation of 18 year olds will probably thinking of moving out of home.

DaSilva

charlietheminxx wrote: »

The thinking that we can protect the vulnerable while the rest of us carry on like normal is seriously flawed. We can't protect anyone while there is widespread community transmission.

Curious why you think that, I hear this exact phrase said often, but I also regularly hear people suggest a country can be protected despite widespread global transmission. I know they are not exactly the same thing, but the concept is the same, just the scale is different.

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely disagree with this. Its absolutely abhorrent to me that anyone would discuss what a life is worth or put a value on anyone's life based on their age.

Plus, it will not be 18 year olds "with a life ahead of them" who'll be paying for this. Not by a long shot. Most of them will spend on average the next 10 to 15 years living rent free in Mammy's, "saving" while people of our age, those in their forties and fifties, will be the ones who pay for this. Still of working age for another almost 20 years, by which stage the current crisis will be paid for and the current generation of 18 year olds will probably thinking of moving out of home.

What world do you live in where current 18 year olds are living at home until their late 30s/early 40s?

Ironhead93

Because it would make it glaringly obvious that unless you're near life expectancy or past it, or already severely ill and unhealthy, covid won't kill you. They want people scared so they'll follow these ridiculous restrictions

charlietheminxx

DaSilva wrote: »

Curious why you think that, I hear this exact phrase said often, but I also regularly hear people suggest a country can be protected despite widespread global transmission. I know they are not exactly the same thing, but the concept is the same, just the scale is different.

Ok so let's imagine you have an elderly person called Nora living alone and the answer is to keep her there to protect her and the rest of us carry on with the R0 the way it currently is. Nora will be allowed to have no visitors but the lovely carers sent out to look after her. It is usually 2 - 3 carers in rotation on a week in a homecare situation - let's call them Mary, Pat and Jo.

In this imaginary scenario, Jo lives in a houseshare, her housemates are a teacher and another carer and her boyfriend is a builder. Someone in Jo's circle picks up Covid, or maybe she even catches out while at the hairdressers but either way there is widespread community transmission, so Jo has it, and being young and healthy she is asymptomatic and has no idea. Jo brings it to Nora. It doesn't end there, because now Pat has picked it up from Nora and he brings it to another elderly client.

So how to we minimise this happening? We have to limit the community transmission. Nobody can be fully isolated from other people, especially our most vulnerable.

DaSilva

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Ok so let's imagine you have an elderly person called Nora living alone and the answer is to keep her there to protect her and the rest of us carry on with the R0 the way it currently is. Nora will be allowed to have no visitors but the lovely carers sent out to look after her. It is usually 2 - 3 carers in rotation on a week in a homecare situation - let's call them Mary, Pat and Jo.

In this imaginary scenario, Jo lives in a houseshare, her housemates are a teacher and another carer and her boyfriend is a builder. Someone in Jo's circle picks up Covid, or maybe she even catches out while at the hairdressers but either way there is widespread community transmission, so Jo has it, and being young and healthy she is asymptomatic and has no idea. Jo brings it to Nora. It doesn't end there, because now Pat has picked it up from Nora and he brings it to another elderly client.

So how to we minimise this happening? We have to limit the community transmission. Nobody can be fully isolated from other people, especially our most vulnerable.

Your hypothetical situation is like a country trying to prevent outbreaks while letting visitors in from other parts of the world without any testing, bound to fail. The countries that prevent outbreaks emerging, quarantine and test incoming visitors. Why can't Jo be regularly tested?

charlietheminxx

DaSilva wrote: »

Your hypothetical situation is like a country trying to prevent outbreaks while letting visitors in from other parts of the world without any testing, bound to fail. The countries that prevent outbreaks emerging, quarantine and test incoming visitors. Why can't Jo be regularly tested?

Because you can receive negative results for days after being infected. How often do you propose testing every carer in Ireland?

phormium

Beasty wrote: »

How many in the country are, say, 98? You know your 98 year old grannie has been ill for a few days. You then read a 98 year old has died from Covid-19. You draw your own conclusions, which may or may not be correct. Regardless they are not going to provide any info which encourages anyone to put two and two together

Then what is the use of that info even if they provide it? More ammo for scaremongers?

Is not the info we are given on deaths based on the info when the death is registered rather than when it actually happens?

I think it is and in that case it's definitely going to be days/weeks after the death so I'm sure you would have heard about your granny from someone before that, even if it was actually on the evening news on the day after she died then surely in this age of communication you would still have heard. I seriously doubt anyone is going to discover a relative died from any of these statistics.

suicide_circus

If a 14 year old dies of leukaemia is it viewed as more tragic than an 80 year old dying of heart failure? I would say yes...but why?

Sardonicat

DaSilva wrote: »

Your hypothetical situation is like a country trying to prevent outbreaks while letting visitors in from other parts of the world without any testing, bound to fail. The countries that prevent outbreaks emerging, quarantine and test incoming visitors. Why can't Jo be regularly tested?

The situation you replied to actually occurred in several locations throughout the country during the first wave. 4 elderly people in my locality died as a result, 5 carers and some of their family were consequently infected leaving the home care team short of carers and one carer has been left unable to return to work. It is why many family carers have cancelled their home help package indefinitely, are cocooning with the person they are caring for and have been working, without a break, since March. Many vulnerable people are living alone and cannot cancel their home help package. Protecting the vulnerable is the responsibility of everyone in society. Wash your hands, wear a mask, keep your distance and reduce your contacts are tiny sacrifices to make compared to what the vulnerable and their carers have been enduring since March.

jim salter

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely disagree with this. Its absolutely abhorrent to me that anyone would discuss what a life is worth or put a value on anyone's life based on their age.

Plus, it will not be 18 year olds "with a life ahead of them" who'll be paying for this. Not by a long shot. Most of them will spend on average the next 10 to 15 years living rent free in Mammy's, "saving" while people of our age, those in their forties and fifties, will be the ones who pay for this. Still of working age for another almost 20 years, by which stage the current crisis will be paid for and the current generation of 18 year olds will probably thinking of moving out of home.

Welcome to the way politicians and very 'senior' (non politician) civil servants (puppet masters) view each end every one of us.

The reality is: we are viewed as a number that returns taxes.

This virus targets a very specific demographic - the 'vulnerable' (primarily) those over 78 (or whatever the exact age is). Why not focus on that minority and not crash everything else?

charlietheminxx

jim salter wrote: »

This virus targets a very specific demographic - the 'vulnerable' (primarily) those over 78 (or whatever the exact age is). Why not focus on that minority and not crash everything else?

Can you explain how this is done while we have widespread community transmission?

timmyntc

suicide_circus wrote: »

If a 14 year old dies of leukaemia is it viewed as more tragic than an 80 year old dying of heart failure? I would say yes...but why?

Because an 80 year old has lived a full lifetime - a 14 year old has not.
That 14 year old had their future taken away from them, whereas the 80 year old has lived a long life and had time to fulful his potential.

DaSilva

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Because you can receive negative results for days after being infected. How often do you propose testing every carer in Ireland?

There is belief that negative tests despite being infected also mean low chance of transmission, but it would make more sense to do more than 1 test. And how frequently? Every day.

Sardonicat wrote: »

The situation you replied to actually occurred in several locations throughout the country during the first wave. 4 elderly people in my locality died as a result, 5 carers and some of their family were consequently infected leaving the home care team short of carers and one carer has been left unable to return to work. It is why many family carers have cancelled their home help package indefinitely, are cocooning with the person they are caring for and have been working, without a break, since March. Many vulnerable people are living alone and cannot cancel their home help package. Protecting the vulnerable is the responsibility of everyone in society. Wash your hands, wear a mask, keep your distance and reduce your contacts are tiny sacrifices to make compared to what the vulnerable and their carers have been enduring since March.

It makes no sense to me that we actually put the lives of our most vulnerable in the hands of everybody in the country. We can and should protect them as intelligently as we can, and the first step there would involve regular testing rather than hoping people don't encounter the virus

timmyntc

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Can you explain how this is done while we have widespread community transmission?

Test all carers and their close contacts as often as possible. We have the testing capacity, so these people should get priority. As should healthcare workers.

Or we build some robot carers instead

charlietheminxx

DaSilva wrote: »

There is belief that negative tests despite being infected also mean low chance of transmission, but it would make more sense to do more than 1 test. And how frequently? Every day.



It makes no sense to me that we actually put the lives of our most vulnerable in the hands of everybody in the country. We can and should protect them as intelligently as we can, and the first step there would involve regular testing rather than hoping people don't encounter the virus

Ok let's say we do it it your way. Widespread community transmission. Jo is tested and now has to isolate. Mary's son has picked it up and now she has to isolate. Who is looking after the vulnerable when it's running through the community and carers have to isolate?

My mam works in a maternity hospital, say she picks it up in your scenario but she's getting tested every day so she finds out quickly. I mean she's frontline medical staff in her 60's, so it's not great for her if she gets it, but it's worse if she brings it home to my sister, who is higher risk. So where does she go then? We've had to actually have these conversations in my family.

To some of us, this isn't all hypotheticals.

I'm absolutely sick of the way things are, but I wouldn't trade someone else's life to improve the short-term quality of mine.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

What world do you live in where current 18 year olds are living at home until their late 30s/early 40s?

The real one. Apparently the average age to leave home now is early thirties. Especially if you're in Dublin. Lots of posts on this forum about it, usually related to paying rent to parents while still living at home.

Also, I never said late 30s or 40s. Don't embellish what I posted.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

A 70+ year old person has lived a fairly full life - not that it's okay that they die, but it's wrong to stop everything and put everyone elses lives on hold just to try and squeeze out an extra year or two of that 70+ year old.

You might be giving an 80 year old man an extra year of life, but you've taken a year of life away from so many younger people. This past year people have basically put their lives on hold. It's not really living so much as it is existing.

That young person will also have their whole life ahead of them to make up for it.

timmyntc

Deleted User wrote: »

The real one. Apparently the average age to leave home now is early thirties. Especially if you're in Dublin. Lots of posts on this forum about it, usually related to paying rent to parents while still living at home.

Also, I never said late 30s or 40s. Don't embellish what I posted.

You said in 20 years time when those 18yos start to leave home.

Also what difference does it make whether people move out early or late? They'll still be working and paying for all these measures, it's ridiculous to state that they won't be the ones paying for it. All taxpayers will be paying for it - and the younger generation will be shafted even more than ours because higher taxes will mean they will have to live at home for longer, or stuck in rental trap for longer.

Deleted User wrote:

That young person will also have their whole life ahead of them to make up for it.

Yes but all you've done is give an extra year or two to some older people who have lived full lives, and in doing so you've taken away some of the most important years of younger people's lives. Formative years - years you can't really make up down the line.

Life isn't about racking up numbers, so you can die at 90 and be happy you made it this far. It's about living, actually making the most of the years you have. Restricting people's lives and freedoms to eke out a few more years at the far end, it's not living. For anyone involved.

jim salter

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Can you explain how this is done while we have widespread community transmission?

From a mortality perspective.

5 people I work with (between ages 24 - 36) have had the virus and described it as the worst flu they had - 2 of them have 'underlying' respiratory issues but they DID NOT DIE.

charlietheminxx

jim salter wrote: »

From a mortality perspective.

5 people I work with (between ages 24 - 36) have had the virus and described it as the worst flu they had - 2 of them have 'underlying' respiratory issues but they DID NOT DIE.

That's a completely different issue from what I asked you though.

It's still a good point, why are we only focusing on those who die as being the only relevant statistic? What about those who will be left with long term illness to manage?

Would it not have been better if there were better controls in your workplace to prevent 5 people getting Covid? That's quite a high number of young people infected in one place.

NoBread

timmyntc wrote: »

You said in 20 years time when those 18yos start to leave home.

Also what difference does it make whether people move out early or late? They'll still be working and paying for all these measures, it's ridiculous to state that they won't be the ones paying for it. All taxpayers will be paying for it - and the younger generation will be shafted even more than ours because higher taxes will mean they will have to live at home for longer, or stuck in rental trap for longer.




Yes but all you've done is give an extra year or two to some older people who have lived full lives, and in doing so you've taken away some of the most important years of younger people's lives. Formative years - years you can't really make up down the line.

Life isn't about racking up numbers, so you can die at 90 and be happy you made it this far. It's about living, actually making the most of the years you have. Restricting people's lives and freedoms to eke out a few more years at the far end, it's not living. For anyone involved.

I disagree with this. You keep saying things about adding a year or two onto old people's lives - your average 70 year old today should have 15 years or more left to enjoy their lives after years of hard work, and enjoy their grandkids and have their grandkids really love them.
And these formative years you speak of, they happen much younger than you think. 0 - 8 are much more formative than any other age period in anyones life, and those years aren't being affected much at all in the new level 5 restrictions.

Teenagers are being denied a decent amount of their social lives for sure, but they still can go to school and college and meet there. Nights out drinking isn't where you live your whole life.
It's never been easier to socialise with modern technology, you just need to be inventive and adaptable to utilise what you can do.
2 - 3 years of social life being impacted isn't the end of the world for a person.
And as for paying for it - we all will be, but maybe the rent trap issue might be solved with an economic crash - those happen anyway all the time in a cyclical fashion, and usually reset things that have gone too far the wrong way. With all the working from home, these things might be better after, who knows.

Whatever about the argument about a 60 year old having a less right to live then a 20 year old if you had to choose, but a 60 year old can't be expected to lose his or her life so the 20 year old can enjoy some parties.

timmyntc

NoBread wrote: »

I disagree with this. You keep saying things about adding a year or two onto old people's lives - your average 70 year old today should have 15 years or more left to enjoy their lives after years of hard work, and enjoy their grandkids and have their grandkids really love them.
And these formative years you speak of, they happen much younger than you think. 0 - 8 are much more formative than any other age period in anyones life, and those years aren't being affected much at all in the new level 5 restrictions.

Teenagers are being denied a decent amount of their social lives for sure, but they still can go to school and college and meet there. Nights out drinking isn't where you live your whole life.
It's never been easier to socialise with modern technology, you just need to be inventive and adaptable to utilise what you can do.
2 - 3 years of social life being impacted isn't the end of the world for a person.
And as for paying for it - we all will be, but maybe the rent trap issue might be solved with an economic crash - those happen anyway all the time in a cyclical fashion, and usually reset things that have gone too far the wrong way. With all the working from home, these things might be better after, who knows.

Whatever about the argument about a 60 year old having a less right to live then a 20 year old if you had to choose, but a 60 year old can't be expected to lose his or her life so the 20 year old can enjoy some parties.

Younger years most definitely are the most important I agree, but these are also definitely impacted. You can't visit family, see your cousins, friends etc. You can't socialise except for school. It definitely will have an impact on development.

Worse though is the likes of college students - there is no on campus college anymore. Maybe 1 week in 4 depending on the institution, but the rest is online lectures - very little opportunity to meet people and make friends at university anymore.

I don't think that drinking/nightclubs should be where you live your whole life - I do think that clubs should stay closed, and pubs should have to enforce table service only - those are compromises that make sense, protecting people's safety but still letting them live their lives.

Where it crosses the line for me is the pursuit of no deaths to the detriment of everyone else's quality of life for an indefinite period of time. This latest lockdown is a good example of that. Level 5- for 6 weeks, and then a review and maybe level3/4 after that, and then maybe in January/February we may end up in level 5 again they say. It may save more lives (from covid at least, more deaths from other causes but thats another issue), but at what cost?

And what about us lucky people in 20-40 range, working, and with no social outlet because everything has been shut. No sports, no gym, no socialising, no pubs/restaurants. But we dont go to school to see our mates. Most of the economy depends on us working and paying tax, and yet we get all our privileges taken from us for it.

FintanMcluskey

78% of deaths are over 75.

The median age of death is in the late 80s according to Dr Glynn.

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Completely selfish of course, and a total lack of understanding of the mechanics of life.

Guy:Incognito

Whelo79 wrote: »

Because they don't want us knowing that they are all 70+ and had underlying conditions. They want us afraid, they want us thinking that you, I, our brother, mother, sister, father could all drop dead tonorrow if we catch it tomorrow. Rule by fear.

So what are they gaining by this "rule by fear"?
Everyone going to work, a thriving economy and no talk of deaths would be infinitely better for any government.

Ficheall

FintanMcluskey wrote: »

We have people in here suggesting that one of those lives is as worthy as a child’s.

Is it not more like "Person A has probably only four years left to live, but we could sacrifice* one year of Person B's remaining seventy years to let them have those"?

*Where 'sacrifice' is an oversimplification, really meaning they don't get to play with their friends.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

You said in 20 years time when those 18yos start to leave home.

Also what difference does it make whether people move out early or late? They'll still be working and paying for all these measures, it's ridiculous to state that they won't be the ones paying for it. All taxpayers will be paying for it - and the younger generation will be shafted even more than ours because higher taxes will mean they will have to live at home for longer, or stuck in rental trap for longer.

Yes but all you've done is give an extra year or two to some older people who have lived full lives, and in doing so you've taken away some of the most important years of younger people's lives. Formative years - years you can't really make up down the line.

Life isn't about racking up numbers, so you can die at 90 and be happy you made it this far. It's about living, actually making the most of the years you have. Restricting people's lives and freedoms to eke out a few more years at the far end, it's not living. For anyone involved.

No, I didn't. My reference to 20 years, was to people of my age who are working now.

Deleted User wrote: »

Plus, it will not be 18 year olds "with a life ahead of them" who'll be paying for this. Not by a long shot. Most of them will spend on average the next 10 to 15 years living rent free in Mammy's, "saving" while people of our age, those in their forties and fifties, will be the ones who pay for this. Still of working age for another almost 20 years, by which stage the current crisis will be paid for and the current generation of 18 year olds will probably thinking of moving out of home.

It makes sfa difference to me when people move out. I made the comment in relation to this notion being bandied about that somehow it will be "the young will pay for this" ... they will not.

The most important years of their lives? Maybe in your opinion. In my opinion, a year's delay is nothing for someone in their teens/ twenties. This pandemic will be blip in their memory in what hopefully for them will be a very long lifetime.

In the meantime the opinion is being openly expressed that the lives of older people are somehow of lesser value, in their favour. The very people that built this country in the first place, and they are now basically expendable, and not really worth making too much effort to protect. Sure, they were going to die soon anyway, is the attitude. That is what it comes down to, and that is disgusting and abhorrent to me, in every way.

I'm out. I hope I die (relatively) young, rather that end up with some value being placed on my life depending on my date of birth. Now I understand why so many elderly people express shame when they need care as they get older, and consider themselves to be a burden on their families.