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?

There is a thoughtful report in today’s Guardian (available online, headline ‘Scarred for life’) about the lifelong disadvantage expected to affect 7-24 year olds. The warning is that we have indeed sacrificed the young in our response to covid, and that the scars will be permanent and severe.

A particularly striking quote - ‘We have to face up to the fact that we not only took away the protective net we throw around our children by closing schools...then we mortgaged off their futures’.

I fear we have collectively sacrificed our children in our terrible response.

@Flyonawalk but doesnt every generation feel that it has been shafted by the generations ahead of it?

Has any previous generation deliberately curtailed its economy during a pandemic to this degree? Certainly not in the modern era as far as I’m aware.

Mummy,

There has not been a novel virus pandemic in the modern era.

Depends what you define as modern. We certainly had a structured economy by 1918.

‘We’re often told by lockdown enthusiasts that those US cities that introduced extreme social distancing measures during the Spanish flu pandemic experienced fewer deaths than those that didn’t. But those measures stopped well short of a full lockdown. For instance, in St Louis, which is often held up as a model of how to manage the current pandemic, churches and schools were closed, business hours were restricted and people were ordered to wear mask in public, but the city never issued a stay-at-home order and only cancelled business activity entirely for about forty-eight hours.

Also worth noting that lockdowns weren’t even suggested during America’s deadliest bouts of seasonal flu since 1919. In 1967-68, flu killed about 100,000 Americans and in 1957-58 it killed about 116,000.’

lockdownsceptics.org/how-have-we-responded-to-previous-pandemics/

I really don’t get the extreme language ‘sacrificed our children’.

Despite many problems, schools and universities are being prioritised. Teachers are taking huge risks (the older ones) to make sure the youth are educated.

And, despite a lot of bluster, few young are being fined for breaking Corona rules (except the most egregious offenders).

What we have done repeatedly is sacrificed the asset poor to maintain the assets of the asset rich, the majority of those assets are then transmitted down the generations. There are plenty of ‘young’ in £500,000 flats in London, gifted by their parents so they could ‘get on the housing ladder’ and lots of grandparents paying school fees for their grandchildren.

Every time there is a crisis, we cut interest rates close to zero and gift money through ‘the banks’ with very little scrutiny. This is a hidden tax on young but asset poor. The young whose parents are asset rich just use ‘bank of mum and dads.

I think certain people are very happy of this narrative of old vs young.

MummyPop00 I'm in my 50s I have been through a few booms and busts. I have seen up close the personal cost of pension funds squandered, I have lived through long years of negative equity and high interest rates.

This too shall pass.

If we sent a load of pensioners off to campuses and told them they has to stay in their rooms for weeks before being allowed home there would be uproar! I'm 53 but I think young people are paying too high a price.

Mommy,

I can see you have bias checked your reference!

The clear difference between now and previous pandemics is the Internet. In the previous cases you cited, working from home would have been impossible in the vast majority of cases, it just wasn’t an option.

After the first lockdown, most have also resisted complete stay at home orders, trying to find a balancing point until the vaccine.

@larrygrylls

Notwithstanding WFH, the UK’s GDP still took a 20% nosedive during lockdown.

The point made was ‘doesn’t every generation feel that it has been shafted by the generations ahead of it?’

...my answer is this is unchartered territory, you can argue whether it’s by default or not because of technological advances etc but the fact remains, no recent generation has deliberately affected the economy in this particular way.

If we sent a load of pensioners off to campuses and told them they has to stay in their rooms for weeks before being allowed home there would be uproar!

But that isn't what happened. The universities were opened and students went there expecting to study. It all went tits up and the students are now confined.

no recent generation has deliberately affected the economy in this particular way

Who would that be?

@echt

Every society since the Plague as far as I can see. Happy to be corrected though

Most students are only isolating for a couple of weeks
The alternative some people seem to want is to lock up "others" for months and months

Yes the return to university was shambolic and a 2 week planned idolisation period at the start of term would ah e saved a lot of grief, but the opportunity, like many others , has passed now

The young have not been shafted by the generation ahead

The young and middle aged and eldery have all been shared by an incompetent government that has given us the worst economic hit and the worst death rate in Europe because doing anything else was too much like hard work and might have cost their buddies a bit or upset their mates

@MummyPop00 well they're not locking down in the States now. And the death toll is 215,000 and counting. So far worse than the flu years.

I'm not sure how any of this supports your argument mind you.

It is unusual to quarantine the healthy. Midge - you talk of locking up ‘others’ for months and months. That simply is untrue. Even with locking healthy students into halls, the vulnerable/elderly are hiding away. They are not leading normal lives - none of us are.

The young absolutely are sacrificed for the older generation. If the virus had the same effect on everyone as the under 60s there would be no lockdown.

@Porcupineinwaiting

I’m just stating facts. No society has deliberately locked itself down for centuries. Also, you’re not correct in saying the US had no lockdowns.

I didnt say they had no lockdowns Isaid they are not locking down which is true.

No one anywhere has suggested "locking down for centuries " so why exactly do you need to stick that up as a straw man?

@Porcupineinwaiting

Ok apologies, didn’t catch the current context. No deliberate strawman.

You’re still wrong though. Estimated 675,000 US Spanish Flu deaths (within a smaller population)

Anyhow, we’re digressing away from the original points ie previous generations NOT locking down but this one doing so.

@Eyewhisker

It is unusual to quarantine the healthy. Midge - you talk of locking up ‘others’ for months and months. That simply is untrue. Even with locking healthy students into halls, the vulnerable/elderly are hiding away. They are not leading normal lives - none of us are.

Students aren't being "locked into halls" in any University I know of. That's media stiring.

[quote MummyPop00]@Porcupineinwaiting

Ok apologies, didn’t catch the current context. No deliberate strawman.

You’re still wrong though. Estimated 675,000 US Spanish Flu deaths (within a smaller population)

Anyhow, we’re digressing away from the original points ie previous generations NOT locking down but this one doing so.[/quote]
It wasn't actually possible to "lockdown" in the same way during the Spanish flu. The Internet has made a huge difference to the ability of many people to work from home, for example. They did actually close down school, shops, and restaurants, theatres eventually in many countries though. It is false to suggest they did nothing that any point to contain it.

And during the 1920's flu outbreak , the American states that did the strictest lockdowns recovered financially much stronger than those that did weaker or no lockdowns