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?

Do those who are anti lockdown measures not think that if the Government thought they were unnecessary that's what they would implement. The three tier system was way less than the scientists were saying we should have. And that's because the government are balancing more than just the health side of the pandemic, they do have to consider the wider economic principles as well.

I am not against allowing for less stringent measures, but this can only happen if the test and trace system works efficiently and effectively - and starts to also trace the source of infections more readily. This however cannot happen whilst we are in a period of exponential growth. IF - we can bring infections back down again, then we can start to look at alternative ways of managing the virus. But that is not where we are now.

That's why everyone's anger needs to be directed at the govt that's made those appalling decisions.
It isn't like that in some other countries. It never was, not even in full March lockdown.

Other countries have probably got better healthcare systems. They intend to continue treating people with other conditions this time that in reality hospitals are overrun with people who are dying they will cancel elective operations and anything that isn't as urgent. Those that think only a small number of people die if this virus is allowed to rip through the population are deluded.

The economy is fucked whatever we do. Do you think that if we lock the elderly and vulnerable away, the virus is going to wave bye bye and vanish? If it is allowed to circulate freely in the rest of society it will cause havoc.

Not quite yet, but it will be, if we keep having lockdowns.

We cannot keep paying for it. When that happens, how are then the vulnerable going to cope? And how are families going to cope with the added tax burden.

My anger is directed at the government for having the knee jerk lock them all up decision.

That's the thing though it wasn't a knee jerk lock down.
The lockdown was probably a week too late as BJ was more interested in his baby shower than making decisions. Big events like Cheltenham took place. Initially he was going for herd immunity.

[quote GnomeDePlume]**@Cornettoninja I think you are right. In many ways the death rate is irrelevant. What is important is the number of people who get ill.

My fear is not of dying of covid but of getting ill and then staying ill for months afterwards. After a couple of weeks my employer would be starting to look at me sideways. After a couple of months I would probably find myself out of a job. No income means the mortgage wont get paid.

I should think many, many people are in the same situation. Death isnt the worry, getting ill, staying ill is.[/quote]
You previously wrote:

The hospitality industry is tanking without a doubt but it was overblown. There had already been many business failures in recent years.

It's so clear to me that people only seem to care if they are personally financially affected. Your two statements here highlight this. You're scared of taking too much time off for sickness that might mean you lose your job but people in the same situation of losing their livelihoods don't matter one jot because it was "overblown" anyway in your opinion.

You only care about yourself, your own finances and how you are personally affected and it is utterly sickening.

In many ways the death rate is irrelevant. What is important is the number of people who get ill

It really is. It doesn’t matter what it is, no health service on the planet is designed to cope with significant numbers requiring their services. If covid killed quickly we would be looking at a different set of problems but healthcare probably wouldn’t be top of the list. If covid caused an incapacitating urine infection for two weeks we’d be stuffed.

Deaths are focused on because they’re the worst that can happen and are pretty significant given the time frames. It’s also marketing to an extent.

You only care about yourself, your own finances and how you are personally affected and it is utterly sickening

that’s not unusual or unreasonable you know? Who else is going to worry about individuals if not themselves?

There are lots of differing viewpoints but ultimately every motive is rooted in what that individual perceived as the best for them personally. Even if you don’t agree with someone it has to be appreciated that their primary concern is themselves.

@Cornettoninja

You only care about yourself, your own finances and how you are personally affected and it is utterly sickening

that’s not unusual or unreasonable you know? Who else is going to worry about individuals if not themselves?

There are lots of differing viewpoints but ultimately every motive is rooted in what that individual perceived as the best for them personally. Even if you don’t agree with someone it has to be appreciated that their primary concern is themselves.

Primary concern for yourself and seeing others as collateral are not the same thing. It really is making me feel queasy how little others care or even sympathise. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Mental health is equally as important as physical health. Not enough people believe or recognise this unfortunately, I am not willing to sacrifice my mental health, and I am not sorry. I will take all precautions, masks, distancing and sanitizing, that’s enough for me thanks.

Not really, if people feel their existence is under threat and they’re forced to pick, they’ll pick themselves. You can’t judge people’s response on here because you have no idea if they’re idly musing or genuinely fearful of losing everything they have.

My view is broadly in line with containing the virus to protect everybody and everything long term and I view it as far too soon to say it’s time to give up. There is a point that’s unavoidable but I don’t believe that we’re there yet. We’ve proved already that there can be a balance and now we have to find what works in a different set of circumstances.

This is an ongoing emergency, it’s long, hard and people are tired so it’s easier to believe that’s not the case. I get that, but imho they’re wrong and their way will make things worse. I’m scared of the wider consequences that are often ignored when challenged on my own personal individual level.

Problem is we are only ever going to be certain of what actually happens, people who fare worse are going to be convinced there was a better way and there will be no way to prove or disprove it.

Mental health is equally as important as physical health. Not enough people believe or recognise this unfortunately, I am not willing to sacrifice my mental health, and I am not sorry. I will take all precautions, masks, distancing and sanitizing, that’s enough for me thanks.

Yet some people want to lock away the vulnerable with no regard for their mental health when they have already been subject to more restrictions than the rest of the population. Yes it wasn't mandatory but really there was little choice when you have dependents.

Yet some people want to lock away the vulnerable with no regard for their mental health when they have already been subject to more restrictions than the rest of the population. Yes it wasn't mandatory but really there was little choice when you have dependents.

Yeah, while others want to lock everybody up, dependents or not.

Yes

Ffs no one is being locked up. Kids are at school, some shops are open even in tier 3 areas.
Ecv and very often their families were stuck in the house for four months (Initially they couldn't even exercise) on and people want to reinstate this so they can have more freedom than we all have currently have.
The restrictions currentky in place bear no resemblance to proper shielding.

Even restaurants are open.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon
So how does any of this equate to beiing locked up?
Again ECV were eventually allowed out to exercise but that was it for 4 months and that is what you want.

Locking everyone down will reduce transmission. Locking down vulnerable will not. What is going to prevent Wuhan?

The economy did not look rosy there - the longer you leave it to take action, the bigger problem you have.

I'm sorry, Northern but you seem very fixated on the fact that you had to shield.

Let it go, it's not all about you.

I might be wrong, and apologies if that's the case, but it seems you took it very personally and now you want everybody else to go through the same sort of thing.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

I might be wrong, and apologies if that's the case, but it seems you took it very personally and now you want everybody else to go through the same sort of thing.

Quite a nasty post you made there in my opinion. I don't think Northern wants that at all! They were explaining the difference between shielding which is what you're advocating for millions of people and their households so that everyone else Carrie's on as normal. As has been explained many many times your suggestion is unworkable.

I had absolutely no problem with shielding. In fact to a certain extent it was quite enjoyable having more time to sprend with kids etc.
I judt don't like the attitude on here that it is acceptable to lock up the vulnerable again so life can continue for everyone else.
Especially when it is you saying I want others to be Locked up when they never were even during actual lockdown.
Fwiw I don't think we should lockdown again but equally I don't want the figures to rise too much as the NHS is already screwed.

Cross post @mrshoho
thank you.

@Namenic

Locking everyone down will reduce transmission. Locking down vulnerable will not. What is going to prevent Wuhan? The economy did not look rosy there - the longer you leave it to take action, the bigger problem you have.

This.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon

Yet some people want to lock away the vulnerable with no regard for their mental health when they have already been subject to more restrictions than the rest of the population. Yes it wasn't mandatory but really there was little choice when you have dependents.

Yeah, while others want to lock everybody up, dependents or not.

Some want to stop dragging out a shit situation. Short-term pain, long-term gain.

I'm beginning to think the Anti Containment measures lot secretly enjoy the current half life situation we all have. Why else would they seek to delay a return to normal.

They can't seriously pretend the economic and medical experts are wrong. Not when the evidence is in front of us - the countries who've taken effective action all have healthier economies and a society back to largely normal.

[quote MarriedtoDaveGrohl]**@mrshoho* We had unemplyment of 12% back in 1984. I was 14 and the prospects for school leavers was not exactly rosy. Unemployment now is around 5% and yes I know will rise but this is temporary. In the 80's university and that whole experience wasn't on the radar for the majority of that generation. It was 2 years on a YTS schem for £30 per week and no guarantee of a job at the end.*

Spot on. I dug onions up, picked apples, worked in an apple processing place, and did a 3 month deeply boring placement in a civil service office (dad pulled strings but I was useless). And was unemployed. In the end I started selling door to door just to earn money. I lived. It got better. I moved out at 17 and life didn't end, in fact I got on better with my parents.

And here's another fun fact or two for those thinking that the past was so easy and kids are fucked. At that time we made fuck all money. NO ONE lived alone or in a couple. It was grotty flat shares until you were at least 30. Becoming less grotty but still flat shares. I didn't buy my first flat till my early-mid thirties as I was on my own.

NO ONE had decent stuff or expensive tech. NO ONE had designer clothing or nice makeup. Or takeaway coffee or posh nights out. No one had their parents spend hundreds at their birthday or Christmas. NO ONE had cosmetic treatments. Because NO ONE could fucking afford it.

Seriously the young have got their whole pampered fucking lives ahead of them. A rough year isn't the end for them. It might even be the making of them.[/quote]
@MarriedtoDaveGrohl

You describe it very well, you are right.

I remember my grotty house shares well, but at least they allowed me to save!