Relaxation of Restrictions, Part IX *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

normanoffside

Graham wrote: »

The target was <10.

The target was achieved.

It didn't work?

How are you confused. It didn’t work because we’ve been in lockdown for 6 months since then. Are you hoping for second time lucky?

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

Jaysus we really have reached peak insidious when a cretin preaching Eugenics is the poster child for a certain cohort.

Out of interest Boggles, if you had the choice between saving the life of an 8 year old or saving the life of a 39 year old, which one would you save?
Or would you just stick your head in the sand and hope somebody else comes along and makes the choice for you, so you can go back to your little moral high ground and call people eugencists?

I’m not sure what the full context of the discussion was, and Sumption probably could have been slightly more sensitive in how he addressed the point — but when we are talking about weighing up the value of lives it’s very hard not to come across cold eventually. Saving the life of a child over an adult would seem like the natural (even if difficult) decision that most people would make — putting your thought process into words would be something that many people would really struggle with. Sumption just appears to have verbalised that concept and I don’t know if anyone could ever put it in words that absolutely everyone would find sound both ethically and from the perspective of sensitivity.

Plus, Christ above, I think Jonathan Sumption has at least earned the intellectual authority not to be seen as a raving eugenicist anything. You don’t have to agree with him (I don’t agree with him in everything), but he’s an extraordinarily intellectual guy and tries to apply reason to his thoughts.

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Out of interest Boggles, if you had the choice between saving the life of an 8 year old or saving the life of a 39 year old, which one would you save?

Mad tangent, but lets focus on what he thinks and has stated.

Do you think one 8 year child's old's life is worth less then an another 8 year old's life?

SnuggyBear

Boggles wrote: »

Mad tangent, but lets focus on what he thinks and has stated.

Do you think one 8 year child's old's life is worth less then an another 8 year old's life?

If one is terminally ill yes

NPHET's approach is bizarre.

Let's say that a target of < 100 cases a day means restrictions can be eased. They know that easing some restrictions will cause cases to go back over 100, so does that mean NPHET now advocates a return to lockdown again - and again - and again - and again.

It's a self-perpetuating problem.

Similarly, if the target is < 300 cases a day, does that mean a lockdown will not be re-imposed if, after restrictions are eased, cases return to 500 cases at one point? And if not, then why are restrictions in place now then?

It's totally illogical.

Boggles

SnuggyBear wrote: »

If one is terminally ill yes

That is a deeply disturbing opinion.

SnuggyBear

Boggles wrote: »

That is a deeply disturbing opinion.

To a simpleton maybe

paw patrol

Boggles wrote: »

Mad tangent, but lets focus on what he thinks and has stated.

Do you think one 8 year child's old's life is worth less then an another 8 year old's life?

SnuggyBear wrote: »

If one is terminally ill yes

Boggles wrote: »

That is a deeply disturbing opinion.

I hate to break it to you but that's how actuaries calculate awards for medical negligence and other stuff like that for the court.
They weight up individual factors thus valuing , at least in monetary terms the value of what a productive future life was worth

So it's heartless but it's a fact.

Emotionally it's different of course

timmyntc

Boggles wrote: »

That is a deeply disturbing opinion.

Not really - a terminally ill person by definition will soon pass from their illness, whereas a healthy person can go on living for a long time.
The person with the longer life has the potential to do more good in the world (by virtue of having more time).

Yes it's not a nice decision to value one life over another, but sometimes in life there are hard decisions to make.

Also this isnt what eugenics means fyi.

Russman

Deleted User wrote: »

NPHET's approach is bizarre.

Let's say that a target of < 100 cases a day means restrictions can be eased. They know that easing some restrictions will cause cases to go back over 100, so does that mean NPHET now advocates a return to lockdown again - and again - and again - and again.

It's a self-perpetuating problem.

Similarly, if the target is < 300 cases a day, does that mean a lockdown will not be re-imposed if, after restrictions are eased, cases return to 500 cases at one point? And if not, then why are restrictions in place now then?

It's totally illogical.

If I remember correctly, World Health flagged it very early in the pandemic (don't remember the dates, but last summer sometime), that the way they saw this all playing out was lockdowns followed by relaxations in restrictions, followed by lockdowns, and repeating the cycle until vaccination/herd immunity kicked in.

A lockdown would never, nor was it ever intended to, get rid of COVID once and for all. It does exactly what its supposed to, drive cases down and buy time. Now, whether we used that time properly is another debate altogether.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

Not really - a terminally ill person by definition will soon pass from their illness, whereas a healthy person can go on living for a long time.
The person with the longer life has the potential to do more good in the world (by virtue of having more time).

Yes it's not a nice decision to value one life over another, but sometimes in life there are hard decisions to make.

Also this isnt what eugenics means fyi.

It's referred to as the "number of life-years saved".

If doctors are faced with the decision of an inevitable death, they must save the person who has the highest likelihood of living out a greater number of life years.

Scarce medical resources are always applied with this principle in mind, and it is also consistent with the Hippocratic Oath that clinicians are sworn to uphold.

Boggles

timmyntc wrote: »

Yes it's not a nice decision to value one life over another, but sometimes in life there are hard decisions to make.

No one in functioning a society ever makes that decision.

No ones life is less valuable than anyone elses whatever their age or ailment.

It's the absolute bedrock of human rights.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

No one in functioning a society ever makes that decision.

No ones life is less valuable than anyone elses whatever their age or ailment.

It's the absolute bedrock of human rights.

It's got nothing to do with someone's life being less valuable.

It has everything to do with saving the highest number of available life years.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

It's referred to as the "number of life-years saved".

If doctors are faced with the decision of an inevitable death, they must save the person who has the highest likelihood of living out a greater number of life years.

Scarce medical resources are always applied with this principle in mind, and it is also consistent with the Hippocratic Oath that clinicians are sworn to uphold.

No they aren't, you have been watching too much Grey's Anatomy.

timmyntc

Boggles wrote: »

No one in functioning a society ever makes that decision.

No ones life is less valuable than anyone elses whatever their age or ailment.

It's the absolute bedrock of human rights.

See

Deleted User wrote: »

It's referred to as the "number of life-years saved".

If doctors are faced with the decision of an inevitable death, they must save the person who has the highest likelihood of living out a greater number of life years.

Scarce medical resources are always applied with this principle in mind, and it is also consistent with the Hippocratic Oath that clinicians are sworn to uphold.

Anyways this is all being dragged off-topic by you again B - trying to avoid arguments and instead attacking people's character with accusations of eugenics-support (none of this is eugenics btw, you seem to not understand that word).

So back to the point:
Lord Sumption made some very good points about freedoms

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

It's got nothing to do with someone's life being less valuable.

It has everything to do with saving the highest number of available life years.

He smirked at a lady with cancer and told her, her life was of less value in the context of a debate around restrictions.

That is cretinous and insidious.

Zero to do with triage in a medical emergency.

uli84

PARENTS WHO HAD to submit their own passports as part of the application for their child to get a passport may have to wait as long as six months to receive their own back. - someone please tell me this is a joke..

ArthurDayne

Boggles wrote: »

Mad tangent, but lets focus on what he thinks and has stated.

Do you think one 8 year child's old's life is worth less then an another 8 year old's life?

I note that you did not answer the question. Easy to call people raving eugenicists when you hide away and let other people talk about the difficult stuff right?

When it comes to two 8 year olds, it would be extremely difficult. In the heat of the moment, it may have to come down to the likelihood of being able to save one / the chances of survival and maybe even perhaps the quality of life. It would be very context-driven and, depending on the amount of time you have (seconds or hours) the ‘criteria’ for making that choice might not be ethically perfect. As I said in my last post, using the term “value” does seem cold, but how else would you verbalise the choice you are making? One is essentially creating a moral score chart in one’s head, and whichever child “scored” the most you would likely save. It’s a terrible choice, and I’d be more than happy to hear how you would go about putting it into words.

I stress the difference between your approach and mine — I am not the one coming on here shouting about eugenics. If someone is faced with a decision of saving one out of two 8 year olds, that is an incredibly difficult call, but one which would have to be made. So long as the person made the call on the most sincere and thoughtful form of reason I wouldn’t be calling them a eugenicist.

It’s not a mad tangent, the entire past year we have been wrestling with the concept of weighing up life. When it comes to Covid, there will come a day when we as a society will have to come to a point where we determine that a certain level of Covid deaths is at a number we can ‘tolerate’. In other words, the moment will come when a certain number of lives is deemed to not be at the requisite numerical value to prevent life from continuing on as normal. So far from being a mad tangent, it’s part of a theme that is likely to become apparent once many of the vulnerable are vaccinated.

But anyway, are you going to answer the question or not? Or do you just want to get back to sniping from your morality altar?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

No they aren't, you have been watching too much Grey's Anatomy.

False.

The Hippocratic Oath may have been modernized, but the underlying principle that motivated its creation - and the modern code of ethics that clinicians today abide by, is precisely the same.

timmyntc

Boggles wrote: »

He smirked at a lady with cancer and told her, her life was of less value in the context of a debate around restrictions.

That is cretinous and insidious.

Zero to do with triage in a medical emergency.

How can you save one life over another if you dont first have a scale of value for each individual life to rank on?
The life with the least time left to live is the least valuable, thats just how it is.

When a ship goes down and they save women and children first, that is giving more value to those lives than mens. Theres nothing wrong with that.

Unless of course you wouldnt let children skip ahead of you on a sinking ship?
Are you some kind of child killer? :pac:

Boggles

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I stress the difference between your approach and mine — I am not the one coming on here shouting about eugenics.

Lord Eugenics is though. And he has history for it.

His musings are not based around who to save in a medical situation.

He is not a fan of masks, vaccines and he hates restrictions.

Open up and cull the weak is how he would deal with the pandemic because as he has stated their lives are of less value.

Personally I think that is abhorrent.

timmyntc

uli84 wrote: »

PARENTS WHO HAD to submit their own passports as part of the application for their child to get a passport may have to wait as long as six months to receive their own back. - someone please tell me this is a joke..

Scandalous. In no other first world country would this kind of **** happen and be tolerated. You can't even emigrate if you dont like it because they wont give you a passport.

Passports are absolutely a essential service, mad that they can just throw their arms up and say "sorry no can do"

ypres5

Silentcorner wrote: »

If The Journal closed their comments section they're readership would fall through the floor...their comment section is keeping them alive...now what does that say about them?

that's true and their comments section is an open air sewer at the best of times it makes the daily mail comments section look like the cambridge debate team

timmyntc

Boggles wrote: »

Lord Eugenics is though. And he has history for it.

His musings are not based around who to save in a medical situation.

He is not a fan of masks, vaccines and he hates restrictions.

Open up and cull the weak is how he would deal with the pandemic because as he has stated their lives are of less value.

Personally I think that is abhorrent.

Would you advocate lockdowns every winter for the rest of time?
Because that would save more lives of the elderly who would usually die from flu.

If you rank all lives equally, then you would support saving the elderly from flu.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

False.

The Hippocratic Oath may have been modernized, but the underlying principle that motivated its creation - and the modern code of ethics that clinicians today abide by, is precisely the same.

No it isn't.

Doctors in this country belly laugh whenever someone "points out" that they have sworn to the Hippocratic Oath.

They don't.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

How can you save one life over another if you dont first have a scale of value for each individual life to rank on?
The life with the least time left to live is the least valuable, thats just how it is.

Exactly.

To take an extreme hypothetical example, if there was a choice between choosing to save a perfectly healthy 1-day old baby or a 99-year old who had a high likelihood of death within 28-days, I think we both know who Boggles would save.

To dodge this question, Boggles would have to say that, "I may toss a coin and base my decision on that outcome, as both are equal choices".

But if Boggles has a means other than random to choose who to save, I'd like to know the basis of that decision.

Boggles wrote: »

No it isn't.

Doctors in this country belly laugh whenever someone "points out" that they have sworn to the Hippocratic Oath.

They don't.

False again.

As I stated, they sign a Code of Ethics which abides by the principle of the Hippocratic Oath. They are one and the same; only one is a modern version of the other.

Sobit1964

uli84 wrote: »

PARENTS WHO HAD to submit their own passports as part of the application for their child to get a passport may have to wait as long as six months to receive their own back. - someone please tell me this is a joke..

There is zero reason for this. It took 5 working days door to door to get a UK passport renewal whilst living abroad - regular not expedited service. It takes a few days longer for children's first passports - god only knows whats going on in Ireland right now.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

No one in functioning a society ever makes that decision.

No ones life is less valuable than anyone elses whatever their age or ailment.

It's the absolute bedrock of human rights.

They do, Boggles. If push comes to shove, Doctors will choose the patient who has more chance in the longer-term.

Hence the reports from Italy where they were taking the very old patients off vents to make way for younger people.

What is the alternative in a "there's only one lifejacket, but two people in need" scenario? Let them both die?

Elessar

uli84 wrote: »

PARENTS WHO HAD to submit their own passports as part of the application for their child to get a passport may have to wait as long as six months to receive their own back. - someone please tell me this is a joke..

Unfortunately nobody cares.

We as a society are so laissez-faire about the curbing of our personal rights and freedoms that we truly deserve every attempt to limit them that ever comes our way.

Boggles

timmyntc wrote: »

Would you advocate lockdowns every winter for the rest of time?
Because that would save more lives of the elderly who would usually die from flu.

If you rank all lives equally, then you would support saving the elderly from flu.

No ones life is of less value than anyone elses, whatever their age or ailment. This is human rights 101.

Do you think if someone with cancer is murdered, the murderer should get a lesser sentence?