AIBU to Think MNHQ needs to tackle the ageism on this site?

[LastGoldenDaysOfSummer]

The venom and hate aimed at older people on some of the Covid threads is disgusting. If the same was aimed at disabled, TW or BAME people then the posts would be deleted immediately, and rightly so.

But because it's the elderly it's left to stand, even after being reported. This isn't new, MNHQ has always been a hotbed of ageism but it's usually dealt with when reported.

But not any more. Should they be doing more?

Someone has just linked this response from the NHS to the Times article.

www.england.nhs.uk/2020/10/nhs-and-other-professional-bodies-response-to-sunday-times/

They would say that, wouldn’t they? I used to work for the NHS drafting responses like that and I recognise the smell of bullshit. I imagine the board of NHS England are collectively shitting themselves.

@IrmaFayLear

But then you are saying your boyfriend gets a pass because he looks youthful. What about a boyfriend with no hair at all, with a paunch and a bit stooped?

I think you have actually defeated your argument because people should not need to look 20 years younger than they actually are to be judged worthy of being good company or able to perform their job well.

In fact this is where men suffer more than women because we can don a roll-neck jumper and douse ourselves in L'Oreal whereas men look right prats if they dye their hair and run the risk of looking like the oldest swinger in town (song).

I haven't given my boyfriend a pass as you put it and if you don't mind me saying you have completely missed the point of my post.

That point being that posters made a judgement about my boyfriend (and indeed me) based on the fact that he is 60. He could well have a bald head and a paunch, but it doesn't make us out of touch, dull, 'elderly' company for a 23 year old which was the conclusion reached purely on a given age on a forum.

The fact that he looks good and is in good shape is incidental, and I only give it to contradict the ludicrous assumption that he/we are 'elderly'.

You are still making the same point! To validate the argument, you should have said he's out and proud with his wrinkles, and still good company. By saying - or implying - that he looks young for his age you are buying into the fact that we should all be manically trying to hold back the encroaching tide of time in order to remain "relevant".

If you said he was fashionable and amusing, then that would be sufficient. People can be trendy, funny, good company at any age. But citing the "full head of hair" obviously is code for "youthful" , which is, I maintain, not just counter to the argument but full-on buying into ageism.

I didn't read it, but noticed a header to something in Mail confirming N.H.S. were refusing to treat over 60's for corona at the first lockdown, despite ample capacity. (This would be the time corona patients were being decanted into care homes, and care home doctors were unlawfully issuing blanket D.N.R. orders for entire care homes.)

I don't know much about the Nazi policy, but have the impression it was to keep alive a young strong work force, and improve genetic purity, so those too young or too old to do a good day's labour were merely an economic drain, and should be disposed of. Of course, injured, sick and disabled people, mentally ill or impaired, should go too.

Elimination wasn't, therefore, a scheme to eliminate Poles, Jews, Roma etc., but a chillingly logical idea to improve The Economy.

Well, The Economy is exactly the idol still worshipped by other countries, notably the various colours of U,K. governments over the generations, and increasingly over the last half century. Throw the non productive overboard, and encourage the earners to spend spend spend even if they ruin themselves with debt, and ruin their bodies with obesity and diabetes, and ruin the climate.

And all because consumerism must be constantly stoked up as a sacrificial offering to appease the G.D.P. Our politicians, particularly Rishi, openly admit they want maximum consumer spending

Borrowing on the national credit card to hurl money at consumers to spend spend spend is the Great Good, agreed by Unions, and Political Parties, and the Age Hate organisation (called Resolution).

Over 60's can't get mortgages, (nor can disabled and mentally challenged), so they are surplus to requirement.

You can't fault the logic. You could question the object of worship. It's only a G. D. P., not really a G.O.D.

(Rishi dear, put it away, you don't actually need to prove yours is bigger than the other boys'.)

Over 60's can't get mortgages, (nor can disabled and mentally challenged), so they are surplus to requirement

Most over 60s don’t need mortgages, they’ve paid them off. Therefore they have more disposable income to spend, spend, spend. I can not only fault that logic but I can demolish it.

Im 55 dude and I havent see it myself. Behind my keyboard I could be 21 how does someone know how old anyone is?

The NHS where I live in March (covid central then and probably now...) was not taking people of any age who could say 5 words, compared with those who could say 3 - the ambulance service had that instruction. Indeed one mother of children in London died because of that - her husband found her the next day dead on the bathroom floor as the ambulance had come out but she could say more words than their rule as to who would be taken in. We rationed too much then.

However the basic principle that some of us do better than others on ventilators holds good and I doubt I would consent at my age to go on one for example.

This article makes some important points about what older people contribute.
www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/10/covid-19-has-worsened-ageism-here-s-how-to-help-older-adults-thrive/

That's a good article, thanks for the link @MsSafina.

Experience of life. No qualifications or education in the world can give somebody that. Only age.

You're welcome.

Emmie12345

We need to let our kids live their lives in a free and full way

They should be our priority , not those who have lived their lives already

Sorry - made a detailed post about prevalent unmoderated ageism and only the charming quote above remained

The 'good' thing about the Spanish 'flu was that it killed quite quickly, on the whole, and thus would not have cluttered up hospital beds (had they been available) in the way that covid does. The 'bad' thing about it was that the young were more likely to succumb.
I fail to see the point of ventilating or taking other heroic measures to 'save' the lives of the very elderly. Yes, that's rationing care. But ITUs full of covid patients cause a rationing of care by default anyway. Should it simply be first sick, first served?

It seems ok to spout vitriol at certain demographics on here, as I was discussing in another thread tonight. It's apparently ok to say 'men are pigs' as somebody did today but absolutely definitely not ok to criticise certain religions for their homophobia, because ethnicity is apparently linked to religion - which also seems an odd argument to me as ethnicity shouldn't be an excuse for homophobic individuals. The mind boggles!

We need to let our kids live their lives in a free and full way

They should be our priority , not those who have lived their lives already

I'd agree in the case of a child vs a very elderly individual, but conversely I think the death of an adult is more tragic than the death of the very young in most cases as they have more friends, dependents, etc, and have impacted on the lives of more people. Babies don't really even have personalities or offer much more than the next child to be brutally honest.

Still it continues ...

I, sorry but I a:struggling to see what is wrong with the quote from @LordLancington.
One might not agree with it but at no point does it say that older people should be forgotten about or let to die.

It says that sometimes we need to make choices because we can’t have the cake and eat it too. Many political decisions (if not all) are on that basis. Should we fund the nhs or increase taxes? Should we yes to this cancer drug that is extremely expensive but could save the life of a few people or say yes to a cheapish drug that will improve the quality of life of many people with another condition.
That’s the real world. One where we can’t give it all to everyone.

It’s nothing to do with ageism.

But who are you (or anyone else) to say that someone older has 'lived their lives already'? @TonMoulin? And where do you draw the line? 80 or 70 or 60 or 50 ...?

And of course it's ageist because it's saying that older lives are less valuable than younger ones.

We all know that, sadly, decisions have to be made every day about who should or shouldn't have care - that's a fault of the system. But one would hope that those decisions are made on clinical bases, not just on the basis of someone's age.

So of course it's an ageist statement.

It’s nothing to do with ageism

It’s everything to do with ageism

Clamouring people on some T.V. discussion today yelling that nothing is good enough. no money is sufficient, everyone is 'entitled' to a tax-payers' gift of £250 a week not to go to work. The everyone, you can be sure, was not intended to include old people. The single mantra concerning old people is they are all rich and all own houses.

The ones without a penny of private pension, and not entitled to housing benefit or even pension credit, paying from life savings to keep a rented roof over their heads, might wonder why everyone except them needs more than the basic state pension they paid into all their working lives, and which now gives them an income of £80 a week.

First of all
I AM NOT EITHER SUPPORTING OR AGAINST THE STATEMENT RE GIVING WAY TO YOUNGER PEOPLE.

My comment is much more of a general one.
You can be for or against. You can think that older people are forgotten or that it’s younger people who paying the price. In some ways, it doesn’t matter. These are opinions and people are entitled to their opinions. Whether the older generation is left over is something to be discussed imo just like the fact young people are a.ao paying a high price. Staging a situation where you out people against each other isn’t helpful imo.

Having said that, my comment was that when NICE decides which drugs will be used by the NHS, that’s the sort of decision they are taking. It’s not based on purely clinical basis (yes how effective the drug is etc... count) but based on cost and who is going to benefit the most from x amount of money. It’s crap for those who are denied life saving drugs that suddenly aren’t available because they are just too expensive (even if they are efficient).
The same happens when a government decides where to spend money/taxes. When a government goes for austerity measures, the cost is measured in the amount of poverty and struggle as well as the number of life lost. It’s not a small thing.
Or when a government decides that older people should be sent home during the pandemic because they are less likely to survive. (Clinical décision based on the unfortunate limited availability of beds - who will you chose to treat?).

I am seeing that comment along the same line. Some time it’s hard to actually support everyone and you have to make choices. You can chose a path that will be more detrimental to the older generation or one that will detrimental more to the younger generation. (Hopefully you could find a path that is not too bad for both!) but sometimes it’s not possible. In THAT light, the comment above is just that. Hard choice to make that you do according to your belief of what is ‘more important’ or efficient just like you might decide that low taxes is more important/efficient than giving support to the most vulnerable.

@20mum or the ‘everyone’ is including people on zéro hour contract or minimum wage with a family To feed and worried that, if they stay at home, they won’t have a roof over their head or food in the table.
Like the ones in middlesbrough where half of the children live under the poverty line or more than half of the people were in areas in their council tax by the end of the 1st lockdown.

Sometimes the everyone is a way to protect the most vulnerable. People who have a pension, even though it might be small, won’t have seen a drop in their income.
The fact that some elderly have little to no money is another battle that has nothing to do with Covid.

And there you have it. Fact on the government website shows the state pensioner's £80. Far, far below starvation level because it is for rent and all outgoings. The fact it hasn't been reduced is not going to bring it up to a level considered essential. Polygamous partners are given £90 plus housing benefit and all other state benefits.
Opinion by a footballer says all children are starving.

The posts on MN and this thread are proof of the extraordinary levels of ageism.
Young people matter, and old people aren't worth a thought, let alone a mention, let alone a campaign, let alone enough to keep warm and afford to eat as well.
Just in case you cannot comprehend what is wrong with that, try replacing the word 'young' with the word 'white'. Then, substitute the word 'old' with the word 'black'.