Are We Destroying The Economy In Order To Prolong The Lives Of The Old And Frail?

[dave50]

Are we putting the livelihoods of millions of young people, some with children and mortgages at risk so some old lady in a care home can live a bit longer? Yes that is an extreme and some might say heartless example but basically that is what we are doing. When are politicians going to get a backbone and stand up and say that yes there may be more deaths as winter approaches but I'm afraid it's something we will have to live with, there is not much else we can do apart from what we are already doing. Another total lock down is out of the question and would be economic suicide. As I have often said, we can't save everybody and the sooner people accept that the better.

[vulcan42]

The elderly are the most vulnerable in this epidemic but they are not the ones gallivanting, they are the ones self isolating trying not only to catch the virus but trying to stop it spreading. It seems a lot of people want normality but only on their terms and what suits them. I passed a group of school children last Friday, they immediately reminded me of the nature programmes where the penguins huddle together for warmth. They weren't six feet apart, they weren't even six inches apart, there were four lads standing separately but they were enjoying their first cigarette of the day. The point is, they know they should isolate but couldn't be bothered. Whether we like it or not we're all in this together, the elderly and the young, the vulnerable and the fit. Re arranging our lives to ensure only the fittest survive is the start of enforced euthanasia, " let's get rid of the elderly, they're no longer needed". An idea considered useful to some but forgetting, or ignoring, they too will be old someday.

[ichkeria]

Expecting everyone to self isolate all the time is unrealistic.
It can’t be done.
And young people especially are less likely to.
You can fume about it but you can’t change human nature

[margarettom]

Quite ichkeria. Especially as it's fairly obvious that, unless a young person has an underlying medical condition, they are very, very, very unlikely to be hospitalised or die.

[dannyk13]

Margaret //they are very, very, very unlikely to be hospitalised or die.//
No, but, if they should get infected, they could pass it on to parents or grandparents.

[jackthehat]

My Grandson (14) is taking the CV19 rules/regulations/guidelines exceedingly seriously (perhaps too much so). He is terrified of becoming infected and taking it home to his Mum. I don't think she could be classed as 'vulnerable' but he is scared that she could die and he would be responsible....

[jno]

indeed, jack, that's what a responsible child would do - care about his family.

And just think, he's protecting his grandmother too.

[woofgang]

satprof "Before this pandemic, no-one thought twice about Granny being carried off by the flu"
You speak for yourself!

I do wonder what the reaction would be if the vulnerable people in this pandemic had been babies and kids up to the age of five.....I mean we've got loads, they are easily replaceable so why worry, lets just get the economy back to "normal" and devil take the hindmost.....but kids are cute and older and at risk adults are not.

Yes I think to an extent, where it doesn't put others at risk, people in the higher risk categories have the right to make their own decisions but NO ONE should be advocating things that put them at risk because they are of less value.

AbEd. Stay well :)

[ToraToraTora]

Ed what's your PHD subject matter? and will you become Dr Ed?

[jno]

probably crowd control, TTT...

[teacake44]

Well that's put me in my place, I'm noisy rabble. :0(

[satprof]

Ed - No-one can be considered 'expendable', but you will surely agree that this a matter of balance. Medicine, in practice, makes life-or-death decisions all the time. We have the mis-named National Institute for Clinical Excellence which sets limits, possibly called guidelines, as to how to manage patients with diseases for which expensive treatments are commercially available.

The balance that I believe is important here is to what extent the country is to be put into hock (to be repaid, one way or another, in future years) when the Covid-19 death rate for the last 7 days is a total of 51, or about 7 per day, which is more-or-less 1 person per day out of every 10 million people.

Much as all lives matter, the 'Government' must recognize that there are limits to how far they can go and strike the right balance, and opt for the least-bad outcome.

[satprof]

An excellent graphical representation of the current situation can be seen here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

[woofgang]

Actually medicine in the UK does not make life or death decisions in the same way that you are advocating. They make decisions on what is likely to work, what the individual would want if they could choose for themselves and what is likely to be least bad for the individual concerned.

[fiction-factory]

Yes. Those graphs are informative to an extent. What they can't show though is what the rates, admissions and deaths would be without current restrictions.

[ichkeria]

I may be wrong but I don’t think being old per se is the issue.
It’s that older people are more likely to have other health issues.
The fact that younger people can pass the virus on to older people in any case doesn’t alter the point about human nature.
We STILL appear only to be testing people with symptoms as a matter of course. Despite the evidence that most people who catch it don’t have any.
It’s hard to take the rest of it seriously when you consider that

[ichkeria]

BTW people who think editors should be neutral never read a newspaper leader :-)

[pixie374]

It has to be a balance. I'm really glad it isn't up to me to try to find it. Although it seems callous, the decision is really not money versus lives, any more than it already is. If we were determined to save every life, we would stop people working entirely to save them getting killed on roads... it doesn't make sense, and nobody will be "sacrificed" because they aren't worthwhile, it's more risk assessment.

[pixie374]

She submitted a post, she didn't "edit" anyone's. Blimey.

[allenlondon]

I’ll volunteer for the next train, as long as I can choose a dozen wasters from a certain website to keep me company as we march, whistling happily, into the showers.

There you go, Dave. One useful person and twelve ‘merchant bankers’ (well, similar), all in one swoop.

[AB Editor]

// Ed what's your PHD subject matter? //

Gnome Economics.

// Well that's put me in my place, I'm noisy rabble. :0( //

Meant with affection, teacake. :)