Are we sacrificing the young to save the elderly?

[RubyandBen]

Reading another thread where someone was accusing the OP of wanting to sacrifice the elderly re CV. But the longer this goes on the more education and the economy are screwed is it actually the other way round?

I wonder how many of the higher rate tax payers, the net contributors are between 40 and 66? If there were no restrictions, many of the resulting deaths would probably fall on that age group, seeing as cardiovascular disease, diabetes type 2, and other chronic conditions tend to develop in middle age plus.

Who do the young think would be keeping the economy going to fund their education and NHS now, when the net contributors like experienced heads, consultants, GPS, partners in professional firms, managers, etc are dead?

Well said @DarkMintChocolate - the young are far too quick to rubbish the contribution to society made by people over 55. These are the people who run the country in effect, all the senior lawyers, judges, surgeons, CEOs, engineers, entrepreneurs, etc., the people who have over 12 years of working life left - don't write us all off as collateral damage for your partying, fun lifestyle!

Not many 50+ up to retirement age dying though is there?

No. I think damage to the economy will be worse because the govt has not acted holistically and decisively. Govt chose not to prepare for the worst.

I think the health of the young will be detrimentally impacted because hospitals will be full of sick patients.

the young are far too quick to rubbish the contribution to society made by people over 55

55 isn't elderly!

I think to an extent, the young are being told to sacrifice their futures by (Brexit) and for (covid) the elderly.

And if the economy is trashed, there will be no taxes to pay for the NHS, which the elderly need the most.

I know there are a lot of much younger MNers who are vulnerable too, but the facts are that most deaths are in the over 80s. And they don't necessarily want to hide themselves away in case they get something that could kill them (not will) - they want to make the most of the years they've got left.

It's all much more complex than making the young suffer to protect the old, but I can definitely see why they would see it that way.

@Pumpertrumper

It is a case of screwing the 99.3% to save the 0.07% BUT nobody has a clue of the long term side effects of covid.

Who knows what long term health issues those who caught it at 18 but were totally asymptomatic may be suffering with at 40. U.K. young, fit, healthy and frustrated by covid as much as the next person under 30 but I’m also cautious about the future

Your numbers don't add up. Therefore I can't take your post seriously...

@MummyPop00 no but that is if they have access to medical care. If hospitals fill up, no ICU beds available, then a lot more people in the 50-70 age bracket will die.

Short answer: yes.

All to give octogenarians a few more months of life The average octagenarian could expect a lot more than a "few more months of life", several years, in fact.

@MummyPop00

Not many 50+ up to retirement age dying though is there?

Because (so far, thanks to some form of restrictions) they're getting hospital treatment. Want more dead? No containment restrictions whatsoever and boom... hospital beds full so no treatment for anything - be it Covid, cancer, or a road accident. No staff either because they'll all be off sick with Covid, Long Covid, or PTSD.

Talking of being off sick. Death isn't the only issue. There's the risk to younger age groups of potential long-term disability of Long Covid. Heart, lung, or kidney damage, type 1 diabetes, blood clotting.

Oh - and the economy. The IMF recently warned about how it's impossible to have a functioning healthy economy without containing Covid.

Care about the young? Don't condemn them to long-term disability and economic devastation. Lose the short-termism.

@MereDintofPandiculation

All to give octogenarians a few more months of life The average octagenarian could expect a lot more than a "few more months of life", several years, in fact.

Hope we do. I loved 94 year old Sir David Attenborough's recent documentary. I always learn so much from him. So interesting. Enjoyable too.

It shouldn't have to be a choice of sacrificing one vs the other. If we had a better system in place for track and trace but more importantly for covering lost earnings then this wouldn't be an issue. But we don't live in that kind of country so we must either sacrifice the elderly or the young.

That's right OP. The elderly are being protected....wait, no they're not...The care home scandal shows just how the elderly have been thrown to the wolves.

Effective containment measures would save the long-term economy - so in actual fact mean the elderly sacrificing themselves for the young. Lockdown impacts elderly the most because they have less time left to waste. So they'd be staying indoors, losing previous time they have left - in order to give the young a healthy long-term economy.

We all know the countries who've taken effective containment measures have better functioning economies.

However it's irrelevant because we in the UK haven't taken effective containment measures. Our issue isn't young vs old. It's plain simple government incompetence.
And government and public short-termism.

I always wonder when I read this kind of statements if people really think they understand the situation better than all the experts around the world. It amazes me.
The obvious: overwhelmed nhs meaning much, much more risk for everyone (COVID and not) than all the people in danger now for Covid measures. Plus no service due sick leaves etc, risk on supply chain means less food and logistics, no transport etc.
Also fucking tired of people talking about older and high risk as “the others”. My brother, hospitalised with Covid at 39, only has a bloody vitamin D deficiency. My friend has dialisis - the moment she gets it, it’s probably over for her. Risk is a very wide thing. Stop fucking complaining and understand the times you’re living through

As everyone over 40 is apparently expendable, their tax payments should be equally expendable. No more tax for the over 40s. No income tax, no VAT, nothing.

We should also encourage younger people to smoke and eat very unhealthily. Because we wouldn't want them to overstay their welcome by becoming one of The Elderly.

@Kljnmw3459

It shouldn't have to be a choice of sacrificing one vs the other. If we had a better system in place for track and trace but more importantly for covering lost earnings then this wouldn't be an issue. But we don't live in that kind of country so we must either sacrifice the elderly or the young.

Unfortunately you're right. In order to save the long-term economy, we need to sacrifice the elderly....by which I mean, containment restrictions are a far harsher burden on the elderly (with less time left to waste) than the young (plenty of time to catch up later.

I'm not sure where the middle-aged come in your plan? We kind of need their tax money...their children need their parents too.

Let's hope they don't get Long Covid and end up unable to work for months and months and months.

@sheepandcow in the old v young scenario, basically anyone who can't work is expendable.

And before anyone accuses me of anything, no, I don't think it's right. My whole point is that it shouldn't and doesn't have to be like it.

Well I for one wouldn’t want to be in the lifeboat queue with many pp on here. All about the young “suffering” as if their end is nigh not seeing friends, going out and all the other restrictions that the whole population have. And before I don my hard hat I work in MH so do have a really good insight into some people’s struggle with the changes. Thankfully we have a benefits system that individuals can fall back on if required.
It makes me really sad to hear so many self centred and quite frankly selfish attitudes to other human beings in here.
Can we just not look after each other regardless of age as we will all be old one day.

@DappledOliveGroves

Yes. I agree wholeheartedly with *@Ecosse*.

My 81 year old mother with dementia is one of those currently locked in her room at the care home, because last week four residents tested positive and one has died. Anyone living in that care home has a horrible life. They're not there for fun. They're there because they have dementia, have no idea who they are, what they are and are waiting to die. It's a miserable existence at the best of times, made a hundred times worse by the pandemic. I can't see my mother, can't take her out, can't speak to her (she doesn't know what a phone is and has lost most of her language). For most residents, death would be a blessing and I pray they have euthanasia in this country if I ever get to that stage.

Similarly, even without dementia, most people go into care homes as a last resort. They're weak, ill and unable to manage at home. Most die fairly soon after moving into care homes.

I have no idea why we're sacrificing this country, young people and the economy to keep this section of the population alive. It makes no sense.

I'd advocate the following:

Anyone with dementia or a terminal illness who contracts Covid is given palliative care within their own accommodation, not in hospital. Either they fight Covid and recover, or are given morphine if they can't fight the virus and have a peaceful death.

If hospitals remain overwhelmed then let's have a cut off. Start with anyone aged 85 or over. Again, palliative care at home.

Giving hospital support to a sprightly 65 year old is one thing, trying to keep a frail 85 year old alive is another.

On a macro level this world is overpopulated. Why we think we can control a virus and never die is beyond me.

Most people who caught covid in care homes did only receive palliative care in the care home. The average age of covid patients in icu in Liverpool is 59.

A year of restrictions will not cause long term damage.
Elderly ppl have as much as a right to life. They've done their bit. They've paid more to the Nhs than any Uni student.
Lets follow the rules and do what it takes until society is safe.

Yes we are. It’s wrong and I’m glad to see Manchester protesting .

I do listen to other business owners in my industry (weddings). I personally know the owners of 12 small businesses who are most likely going to have to close in the next six months and 3 who have already folded. They employ hundreds of staff between them. If our industry can't get going again in the summer then I think the whole industry will collapse. That's a £14billion industry gone. Think of the tax revenue that will be lost. The number of nurses and teachers' wages that won't be able to be funded. *

I don’t think the industry will be gone though. Yes it might sadly collapse and people will lose their businesses but a new wedding industry will emerge from the ashes in a few years time offering employment for many again. Whilst individuals may sadly never return to the industry there will be others to take their place and tax revenues will return.

@Torvean32

A year of restrictions will not cause long term damage. Elderly ppl have as much as a right to life. They've done their bit. They've paid more to the Nhs than any Uni student. Lets follow the rules and do what it takes until society is safe.

You are bonkers if you think that year of restrictions won't cause MASSIVE long term damage.

And, restrictions of some sort are likely to last much longer than a year.

Our economy is well and truly fecked and the younger generations are going to bear the brunt of this mess.

No.

Everyone is struggling with the restrictions but no one generation has it worse than another. It is affecting different age groups in different ways but one doesn’t trump another.