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?

@Unsure33

mmmm - my DIL is 27 and extremely high risk . So not quite sure how that argument stacks up.

It doesn't.

There are people who are parents/guardians of young children who are high risk for a variety of reasons and some of them are sole parents/guardians. I guess they should be killed off as well as after all the state makes a great parent.....

OP, no we are not sacrificing the young.

We are trying to protect the hospitals to enable them to still be able treat people of all ages with different conditions, old and young, not just covid patients.

Everyone is making sacrifices in different ways...

Then tell me why don’t we do that with only 8bn now?

I think you and I both know it isn’t a lack of resources but inequality of distribution. The number of people isn’t the problem.

Anyway, I’m backing off from this because it isn’t what this thread is about and is a massive diversion.

Yes, we are sacrificing the young. What was done to this years A level cohort will affect the rest of their lives and it was not ok. Maybe if this was a pandemic with a huge death rate that genuinely affected the whole population, but Covid is nowhere near that.

Yes we absolutely are and it’s a crying shame.

@NailsNeedDoing

Yes, we are sacrificing the young. What was done to this years A level cohort will affect the rest of their lives and it was not ok. Maybe if this was a pandemic with a huge death rate that genuinely affected the whole population, but Covid is nowhere near that.

@NailsNeedDoing

I do agree with this, and always felt that they should have arranged for yr 11 and yr 13 to go into school to take their exams in June. They had pretty much completed the work and it would have been much fairer. They could have created more space and employed more invigilators if necessary, as there were plenty of people looking for work at that time.

I really hope we don’t have a repeat next yr.

Can anyone remember the post about the Government being able to take money directly from our bank accounts? I'm trying to track it down, I'm sure it was on a 'cost of Covid' thread!

@mrshoho

*But, again we see on Mumsnet, that only the effects of Covid matter. These caring, selfless posters aren't that fussed by the people who suffer or even die of other things, even though they hugely outnumber Covid deaths and suffering.*

You probably count me in that group but you are wrong. I care about all these non covid issues deeply. I'm a parent, I have parents, I care about our country. But I just can't see how the situation would be any better without restrictions to lower the transmission. That goes for the economy and the health of our nation.

This.

It's absolutely a false dichotomy to blame "lock down" for the issues we are facing. People just forget the impact of having no measures. Tens of thousands of people died over a.very short period even though we had lockdown. There is no reason to think this wouldn't happen again.

@NailsNeedDoing

Yes, we are sacrificing the young. What was done to this years A level cohort will affect the rest of their lives and it was not ok. Maybe if this was a pandemic with a huge death rate that genuinely affected the whole population, but Covid is nowhere near that.

Yes agree. Failing to contain Covid sacrifices the young to potential long-term disability and a ruined economy.

Long Covid is estimated to affect 10% of patients - including many mild cases. That's a significant proportion of the working age population. Heart, lung, or kidney damage, type 1 diabetes, blood clotting issues. That's just what we know in these early days. Who knows how many more hidden cases will come to light in future years.

We all know the countries who've taken effective containment measures now have healthier economies.

As the IMF has warned we can't have fully functioning economies without containment.

And the BMA have explained why we wouldn't be able to access any hospital treatment - Covid or non Covid, without containment.

I worry about people's cognitive skills when they repeatedly insist on denying or dismissing the experts, the facts, and the evidence staring them in the face on this.

Still one problem's solved. It seems that only 'The Young' matter. Their lives are apparently more valuable than anyone else's (and they too will cease to be worth caring about once they hit 30 or 40).

So. 🚬 and 🍰 Tell the young to take up smoking and eat lots of cake. Nice big tax revenues, lower pension payouts and no social care costs due to shorter life expectancy. Win win.

We are not 'sacrificing the young'. Ridiculous emotive nonsense - they are all in the same boat and have the rest of their lives. 'The elderly' are grandparents and parents giving free childcare, having paid taxes and bought up children and now Covid is here we just say oh well never mind they can die? Revolting. I hope the people who think this find their own children abandoning them in card homes to die. They will deserve it.

Besides it's not just the elderly. It's anyone over 30 and anyone already ill. It's not Darwinism in action either because the thick and nasty will survive. Survival of the fittest isn't about sheer dumb luck.

Yes.

No.

From the John Snow memorandum which is worth reading in full (sorry not read through the thread so apologies if it has already been mentioned on this thread)

“Uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity(3) and mortality across the whole population. In addition to the human cost, this would impact the workforce as a whole and overwhelm the ability of healthcare systems to provide acute and routine care.

Furthermore, there is no evidence for lasting protective immunity to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection(4) and the endemic transmission that would be the consequence of waning immunity would present a risk to vulnerable populations for the indefinite future. Such a strategy would not end the COVID-19 pandemic but result in recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. It would also place an unacceptable burden on the economy and healthcare workers, many of whom have died from COVID-19 or experienced trauma as a result of having to practise disaster medicine. Additionally, we still do not understand who might suffer from long COVID(3). Defining who is vulnerable is complex, but even if we consider those at risk of severe illness, the proportion of vulnerable people constitute as much as 30% of the population in some regions(8). Prolonged isolation of large swathes of the population is practically impossible and highly unethical. Empirical evidence from many countries shows that it is not feasible to restrict uncontrolled outbreaks to particular sections of society. Such an approach also risks further exacerbating the socioeconomic inequities and structural discriminations already laid bare by the pandemic. Special efforts to protect the most vulnerable are essential but must go hand-in-hand with multi-pronged population-level strategies.”

www.johnsnowmemo.com/

The loss of 600 medical staff of working age, bus drivers, other public facing workers who lost their life is low in comparison to elderly deaths but not low enough to go back to normal.
I read France is facing staff walkouts.
December will be telling, DS viral tonsillitis started really early this year, I'm hoping it isn't a sign of heavy viruses in early winter alongside Covid19.

@EmeraldShamrock

The average bus driver or teacher has far more chance of dying in a car crash than from COVID.

The average bus driver or teacher has far more chance of dying in a car crash than from COVID
I hope so preferably not dying in either

Sorry- did I miss the news where the young are being sacrificed for the elderly,l and of course let’s not forget those with medical problems, being treated for cancer, asthma sufferers, those needing long term steroids (conditions they are really varied), preemies.

Let’s also not forget about all the medical staff who get the virus in their rolls caring for those who catch it and have it badly

@EmeraldShamrock

The average bus driver or teacher has far more chance of dying in a car crash than from COVID I hope so preferably not dying in either

... Incorrect

Assessing the Age Specificity of Infection Fatality Rates for COVID-19: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Public Policy Implications

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.23.20160895v6.full.pdf

While the NYC data indicate an IFR of about 1%, seroprevalence estimates from other locations have yielded a wide array of IFR estimates, ranging from about 0·6% in Geneva to levels exceeding 2% in northern Italy.
.....
We find that differences in the age structure of the population and the age-specific prevalence of COVID-19 explain about 90% of the geographical variation in population IFR.
......
These results indicate that
COVID-19 is hazardous not only for the elderly but also for middle-aged adults,

for whom the infection fatality rate is two orders of magnitude greater than the annualized risk of a fatal automobile accident
and
far more dangerous than seasonal influenza.

The average bus driver or teacher has far more chance of dying in a car crash than from COVID

Sadly not

Ecosse,

It does surprise me that someone educated tries to get away with making completely unfounded assertions.

Luckily, on this site, there are plenty able and happy to dig accurately and deeply into the numbers to prove you are wrong.

Are you deliberately giving us an ‘alternative truth’.

Sadly,

It does seem to me, looking at the numbers, that there is little evidence for the very low IFRs many who are not in favour of restrictions would like to believe.

A couple of weeks ago, we were having around 12-13,000 positive tests per day. Yesterday we had about 1% of this number as deaths. I would guess 14 days is a typical mean length of disease in a fatal case. Worse, deaths are reported retrospectively, so my numerator is way too low as many dead will not be reported for several days.

To get to 0.2%, or the flu’, you would have to believe only 1/5 infections are yielding a positive test. If this is true, we will approach herd immunity relatively quickly. I really hope it is, but I don’t think we can base policy on it.

@AvocadosBeforeMortgages

I think it's fairly evident that young people are being asked to sacrifice their education, jobs (young people are disproportionately employed in hospitality and retail), social lives and, as a knock on effect, their mental health.

A sacrifice of essentially almost everything that makes life meaningful, for the sake of a virus that they will almost certainly make a full recovery from, and for people they have mostly never met and never will - especially for those whose grandparents have already passed away

I think so yes.

Yes.
It needs to stop.

40% of those in ICU now are under 60, remember.

@herecomesthsun

40% of those in ICU now are under 60, remember.

Do you have a link for that? I’d like to share it with “friends” on SM who seem to think it’s just an old person’s problem