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?

Safe is a word used too much in this pandemic. We are creating a life full of fear and instilling in our children that there is danger everywhere. It's going to have massive repercussions in years to come.

Ok so 30 40 and 50 somethings aren't dying in huge numbers of COVID bu they are dying still.
Plus 1 in 20 suffering Long COVID.

A flatter curve doesnt necessarily mean a smaller total in the end. We are taking a pure punt on science saving our bacon essentially. If Science comes up trumps, great. But if not...?

Long Covid: 1 in 20 suffer for 8 weeks,
1 in 50 for over 12 weeks (Zoe app)

Unfortunate for the minority who would be afflicted, but also hardly the 1 in 3 who will suffer with Cancer is it? Seems like it’s being overhyped somewhat by the doomsters. I’ve had it, suffering since end of March, still not completely resolved, but vastly improved from where I was & I’ve got an underlying liver problem. Chances are you will improve over time too.

What about the collateral damage - those being shunted aside in favour of Covid?

As regards prioritising the young, of course we should. The young represent the continuation of our species, physically & cerebrally. They almost without exception fight off Covid & our species as a result becomes stronger & more resilient & evolves. It’s entirely natural & the way things should be.

Safe is a word used too much in this pandemic

Yes, totally agree. The expectation they we can and should be kept ‘safe’ from this disease, no matter what the cost is bizarre and an expectation that we’ve never had before.

Are those saying just get on with it willing to go and watch people gasping for breath and not treat them? Because that is what you are asking doctors to do - and to not treat people who are likely to survive with treatment. They cant treat other conditions unless that is what they do - let people die who could survive with treatment.

Meanwhile people are not out spending money because they fear it will kill them. By spreading the virus the young are permanently damaging their future prospects. The young have an excuse for listening to an incompetent government - but if you are past 25 and still falling for Boris's rubbish you have no excuse.

@Northernsoulgirl45

Ok so 30 40 and 50 somethings aren't dying in huge numbers of COVID bu they are dying still. Plus 1 in 20 suffering Long COVID.

But there has always been untimely deaths of 30, 40 and 50 somethings? its shocking and tragic and unusual when people are taken far too early, but it is not new and we'll never be able to prevent it.

In cancer treatment, many drugs are withheld that could save people, because they don’t pass cost/benefit thresholds.

@TheKeatingFive

Safe is a word used too much in this pandemic

Yes, totally agree. The expectation they we can and should be kept ‘safe’ from this disease, no matter what the cost is bizarre and an expectation that we’ve never had before.

completely agree with you both. The damage that the media and the govt have done to peoples ability to rationally assess risk and what is constituted as "safe" for themselves is astonishing.

It seems to me that the Govt is now prioritising education

Rightly so imo.

Meanwhile people are not out spending money because they fear it will kill them. By spreading the virus the young are permanently damaging their future prospects

The vast majority of young are asymptomatic and perfectly happy to spend their money.

Their future prospects and mental health are potentially damaged by lockdown measures, lack of education, lack of job prospects due to lockdown measures.

@022828MAN

Yes. Well really we're sacrificing 99.03% to save 0.07%. Either way it's disproportionate and not rational.

This

@sunflowers246 You are fooling yourself. Lots of data around to show the economies with least economic damage are those who have controlled the virus. The young may spend money still - but other people are not. The economy will not function properly unless more people are out there spending.

You can deceive yourself but that wont change a thing, controlling the virus protects the economy and the future prospects of the young.

Lots of data around to show the economies with least economic damage are those who have controlled the virus.

Only relevant to those who contained it quickly and thoroughly.

The situation that most of Europe is in now is totally different. It would take many further months of lockdown to contain/control. Meanwhile, even as cases surge, IFR remains low and the vast, vast majority of young people are mild or asymptomatic. They show all signs of going to the pub and spending money if allowed.

@TheKeatingFive

Lots of data around to show the economies with least economic damage are those who have controlled the virus.

Only relevant to those who contained it quickly and thoroughly.

The situation that most of Europe is in now is totally different. It would take many further months of lockdown to contain/control. Meanwhile, even as cases surge, IFR remains low and the vast, vast majority of young people are mild or asymptomatic. They show all signs of going to the pub and spending money if allowed.

So ...are you implying that because we have crashed the economy pretty bad, we might as well carry on crashing it rather than try to recover from a bad situation?

So ...are you implying that because we have crashed the economy pretty bad, we might as well carry on crashing it rather than try to recover from a bad situation?

Nope (as I’m sure you know).

I’m saying achieving the degree of virus control you’re looking for now would be absolutely catastrophic to the economy. That ship has sailed.

As fear abates, treatments continue to get better, the economy shows all signs of picking up reasonably well with slow lifting of restrictions, driven by young people’s spending (who to be fair, are clearly very happy to spend money in pubs if allowed).

Sunflowers,

What lack of education? Education is being prioritised, as it should be. The lessons from the first lockdown have been learned.

If the ‘old’ need to take responsibility for their physical health, the ‘young’ need to take some responsibility for their mental health. There is a lot everyone can do to build resilience.

You can deceive yourself but that wont change a thing, controlling the virus protects the economy and the future prospects of the young.

Well, that depends on what you mean with 'controlling the virus'. Do you mean a lockdown with business closures? What does your assumption mean for government spending and debt?

*Sunflowers,

What lack of education?*

A lot of University students are unfortunately not getting the education they were hoping for this year.

Sunflowers,

Do you mean a fun university experience? No, sadly they are not getting that.

Do you mean enough to gain a degree and carry on to the next stage of their life? They are getting that and, in a pandemic, it is the best possible.

Yes, i mean let's all just get it eh. I mean maybe not if you're an overweight woman under 50 who has an increased risk of long covid. Bit none of us are that here right. And let's face it, if we had a couple of months where it went round the care homes properly from infected staff, well it'll be one huge peak but it'll pass. I'm sure were all prepared to sacrifice our parents.

Vulnerable kids bad adults, we can just give them all a laptop if they don't want to catch it. They don't particularly need to go outside, theres plenty of jobs they can do from home regardless of their qualifications and experience.

* They don't particularly need to go outside, theres plenty of jobs they can do from home regardless of their qualifications and experience.*

So, everyone should do this instead?

@TheKeatingFive

In cancer treatment, many drugs are withheld that could save people, because they don’t pass cost/benefit thresholds.

If they don't pass the cost benefit threshold it's either because they don't save people and give them many more years of life or it's because the drug company is trying to charge hundreds of thousands per patient. What healthcare system could afford that?

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

The children whose parents die? Are you kidding me? Have you seen how low the death rate this thing has?

And conversely the rates of all other causes of death increasing not to mention a mental health crisis.

Do the bloody numbers! People have no idea of the bigger picture

Perhaps you should take your own advice and look at the bigger picture. How do you think people with other conditions will do if hospitals are overrun with people dying from Covid and many other staff off sick? There will be many deaths from other causes.

There’s a specific equation. How much investment for how many estimates years ‘saved’.

If it’s over a certain investment per year then no.

There was a good piece in The Spectator a few weeks ago about it. By the measures applied to cancer, our Covid strategy is off the wall.

[quote Ecosse]@Belladonna12

The standard deviation for COVID deaths is actually not high at all. The vast majority of deaths are in over 80s.[/quote]
If the median age is 82 then only half deaths are in people over 82. Currently 50% are lower and that could be increased dramatically if people are unable to get medical treatment because the NHS is overrun and staff are sick. They will not only for Covid but also for other conditions. You may think you are at incredibly low risk of Covid, but you could die of something else if you can't get hospital treatment.