Have I totally misunderstood Coronavirus?!!

[Soph7777]

I'm really confused on so many levels. I don't understand why such panic about contracting it IF you have no underlying health conditions or are over 70.

The chance of dying is still much lower than many, many other illnesses.

I obviously get why people shouldn't be going out of their way to get it - to protect the NHS in the main.

But my understanding of this disease after watching hours and hours of documentaries and reading up is that 80 percent of us WILL get it.

Lockdown is to stop it spreading so quickly that NHS can't cope to treat everyone leading to many more deaths than necessary - it's not to stop us getting it (which inevitably most of us will).

Have I totally missed the mark here?

I don't get why so many people I speak to are acting like getting it means you'll die instantly once you contract it. It doesn't.

Does anyone else feel the same?

Don't kid yourself either about that list. Think Boris would get thrown off the ventilator? There will always be exceptions.

@Nameofchanges

Isn’t it illegal in the U.K. to use age as a criterion for treatment?

No idea whether it’s illegal or not but when doctors are faced with touch decisions they will go for the best outcome. Perhaps subjective but they have to.

The best outcome would be someone that gains most from it. So a 40 year old mother of 2 children 7&10. That’s 3 lives depending on whether she survives or not.

Or an 85 year old? They have to make a choice- they are going to chose the 40 year old every time.

You’re point is irrelevant

The point I was making, which clearly went over your head, is that being older means you are no less valuable as a person than someone younger. So when people minimise the deaths to "only the old and vulnerable" they are implying that those are people who we can do without. And that isn't necessarily so.

As for Drs and nurses minimising it a few weeks ago - what people say to the public and what is said behind closed doors is very different. When people are panicking then to help calm them we do "put it in perspective" with the stats etc. But the public response to that stance was to not take it seriously. Behind closed doors, medical staff were still terrified unless they were really quite thick.

Now, to keep people safe, it seems the public need to feel the fear. Unfortunate but there we go.

Kettle, they are not going to do something which they could end up in prison for.

The best outcome would be someone that gains most from it

Only who has most to gain in medical terms. Being a mother of two would have fuck all to do with the decision made. Only that the person was most likely to positively respond to treatment.

Seriously, it's so easy to tell on these threads who the posters are with fuck all medical knowledge.

@Nameofchanges Exactly. It's ONLY about who will have the best response to treatment. That does tend to be people who are younger but isn't always. It depends on a patients full health profile. It isn't remotely "subjective" as the PP maintained. There are strict guidelines to follow.

That is what I would have assumed SirChing. Whether somebody has young kids or an important job shouldn’t have any impact on whether or not they get treatment in a rationing situation.

@SirChing

The point I was making, which clearly went over your head, is that being older means you are no less valuable as a person than someone younger. So when people minimise the deaths to "only the old and vulnerable" they are implying that those are people who we can do without. And that isn't necessarily so.

No one is suggesting under normal circumstances that an elderly persons life is less valuable, however under these unprecedented circumstances, something has to give.

It’s a fact that tough decisions need to made. No one would willingly do it, but presented with the choice, say a 40 year old mother of two children or the 86 year old? Are you suggesting the doctors would be wrong to chose the 40 year old??

It happens more than we know. People are denied medication because it’s deemed not cost effective therefore they die earlier. It’s horrific but it’s a reality. They can’t save everyone so they have to make choices based on best outcome. No one said it wasn’t difficult.

@SirChing

So you’re in the medical field then are you? I assume so based on your last response...

@SirChing

Ok so you want to be pedantic?

So here’s the choice-

40 year old mother of 2 children (3 lives to consider rather than 1)

Size 12

No underlying health conditions

Non smoker

86 year old

As healthy as can be.

Remember, you can’t say ‘who responds best to treatment’ because at this point, no one is in a ventilator - whole point of this thread is to decide who gets the last one....?

Yeah.... course they’ll give it to the 86 year old.....!!! Argue the toss all you want but he answer is clear as day

@Nameofchanges

That is what I would have assumed SirChing. Whether somebody has young kids or an important job shouldn’t have any impact on whether or not they get treatment in a rationing situation.

Well that’s funny because @SirChing was suggesting that a 65 year old consultant should be considered for ventilation as oppose to a 40 year old-if none of that matters why draw the comparison......!

The NHS is not going to take into account whether or not someone has young children.

@Potkettlexx

Why do I suspect that you have never been in one of those actual discussions where tough decisions have to be made?

One more time as you aren't getting it: the fact that the 40 year old is a mother is irrelevant. Chances are, the staff won't even know about that as they will be only looking at the medical part of patient history if she was that ill.

Even if the medics DID know she had kids, it is irrelevant! Decisions are made solely on the patients ability to respond positively to treatment. That is all.

Lots of the time that correlates to age. Other times it doesn't. The patients underlying health is the SOLE deciding factor.

@Nameofchanges you are absolutely correct. Only the health of the individual matters, nothing else. My point re jobs was to challenge the notion that all those "elderly or vulnerable" people are expendable collateral damage. They aren't.

Well that’s funny because @SirChing was suggesting that a 65 year old consultant should be considered for ventilation as oppose to a 40 year old-if none of that matters why draw the comparison......!

Nope, that isn't the point I was making. I have explained that already. If you are unable to understand explanations then I can't help you.

There's not just the young and fit won't die so don't need to bother. I'm reasonably fit was jogging 5 k two weeks ago. I contracted this virus and now can't walk up the garden without pains and breathlessness but I'm not critical. I'm just in the big group of people who are still classed as mild to moderate symptoms. So please don't be thinking this virus is nothing much !

@Potkettlexx Yes, I have recently left working in a medical field. I said so upthread.

You keep mentioning 3 lives to consider instead of one. You might want that to be borne in mind by medics. And you state it repeatedly as if it is. You are very wrong. It's irrelevant.

I am no longer discussing this with you as it is clear that you can't grasp the nuances of the points being made.

@SirChing

No you haven’t explained anything other than you feel that the elderly will have the same consideration as younger individuals.

You keep trying to make a moot point and dodging the answer. I’ve asked you if your in the medical field- no reply. I’ve given you an example of a situation that medical staff may have have chose two patients and still no answer.

Even if being another doesn’t count for anything - If you’re such an expert answer the question and tell me who you would chose for the ventilator and why?!

@SirChing

So what profession were you in then that makes you the expert? If you were a doctor then please enlighten us as to how they make these decisions then?!

@Potkettlexx Are you hard of reading? I have explained all I can and yes, I am ex medical. If you cannot grasp the points I have made, I really can't help.

So what profession were you in then that makes you the expert? If you were a doctor then please enlighten us as to how they make these decisions then?!

Just stop. I am becoming embarrassed for you.

What’s with that attitude? Is there any need, how old are you?!

I haven’t read the full thread. Ive not read last your first response to one of my past posts about the 40 year old or the 65 consultant.

Still no answer so to what you would do....! What’s the point in debating if you won’t give your answer. That’s why your points are irrelevant (still)

What she would do would be to follow the clinical guidelines which are based on who would respond best to the treatment.

@SirChing

Just stop. I am becoming embarrassed for you

Are you new here? You’re replies are rather strange.

No you haven’t explained anything other than you feel that the elderly will have the same consideration as younger individuals

No, I haven't said that. They are more likely to have underlying health issues which render them unsuitable to ventilate. Or may be too frail to come off ventilation in the future. Equally, someone much younger can be in the same position.

It's not age that is the criteria, it's the individuals ability to respond positively to treatment. As I have said several times, that is likely to correlate to age, but that isn't a given.

And a patient's personal circumstances have nothing to do with the decision. You wishing that were so would not make that true.

Decisions are made in line with the guidelines. Where a persons health as a whole is considered and their likelihood of responding well to treatment. Chances are it would be the younger person who meets the criteria more effectively, but making blanket statements that the 85 year old wouldn't get it but the 40 year old mother of two would, misses so much of the nuance as to be ridiculous. That isnt how medicine operates.

@Nameofchanges

So the 40 year old then in that case?

I really don’t understand what all the secrecy and fuss is about. The question was straightforward.

I’m not aiming this at you @Nameofchanges

Just the attitude of the other poster.