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?

@TheKeatingFive

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.

You are focussing on the wrong thing

The investment isn't about how much is needed to prevent a single death from covid

It's about how much is needed to protect society as a whole from the effect of the pandemic

So it's about trying to keep the nhs running , because if you are treating a covid patients you are not treating someone else

And it's about keeping the economy running, because if people are too scared to leave home, the economy is fucked. Look at London, in the weeks before lockdown, so many things started to lose customers, people started working from home long before it was mandated

So one life might only be worth a few grand, but the knock on effects of that life being lost are lin the case of a viral pandemic are actually a lot more than that, hence it's worth spending the cash

None of the governments actions were motivated by saving lives. So its irrelevant how much each life has cost.

It's about how much is needed to protect society as a whole from the effect of the pandemic

A great deal of society doesn’t actually need protecting from Covid. Only a specific proportion do. It’s becoming easier and easier to pinpoint who they are and what we need to do to protect them, without shutting everything else down.

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

Sure, but looking at both ends, an ‘advantage’ of letting it rip is that the period where society is affected is potentially a lot shorter than what could turn out to be the case if there is no effective vaccine/treatment (or sufficient rollout/uptake in the case of a vaccine).

An 18 month run on the NHS or a half-opened NHS for a hell of a lot longer? They both have downsides & consequences.

Only a specific proportion do. It’s becoming easier and easier to pinpoint who they are and what we need to do to protect them, without shutting everything else down

And what proportion would that be?

And precisely how is it becoming easier to pinpoint them? By what means?

What would be the nature of the protection.?

Echt, I got the impression that it was about half of the population that needs locking up if we are to prevent the nhs from overload.,..Chris Whity said anyone over 45

I can't see that as practical myself

And precisely how is it becoming easier to pinpoint them? By what means?

I have a good friend who’s head of data for a global healthcare firm. They have amassed significant risk profile data for Covid. It’s not being used in the public domain, but it should be (they are in talks with various governments now).

They have very good visibility on risk factors, at a granular level. Proper use of this material would help make much better decisions about who should be advised to shield.

Ah. A good friend.

Bollocks.

@MummyPop00

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

Sure, but looking at both ends, an ‘advantage’ of letting it rip is that the period where society is affected is potentially a lot shorter than what could turn out to be the case if there is no effective vaccine/treatment (or sufficient rollout/uptake in the case of a vaccine).

An 18 month run on the NHS or a half-opened NHS for a hell of a lot longer? They both have downsides & consequences.

Why would the NHS be only half opened for a lot longer than 18 months if there is lockdown? We will probably have a vaccine in a few months.

Nope. But believe what you like. I’ve no way of proving myself to you, or desire to.

No , the whole of society does need protecting

I was not talk8ng about individuals,,,clue there , it's a different word

Suggest you google what society is and why each individual human benefits from living in a society

The risk to the individual may be death or serious illness or nothing

The risk to society is society failure, which can manifest as failure to provide health or financial support to those in need, it can also manifest as a failure of basic supply chains, so no food on shelves .

Countries with a greater focus on individual are doing worse than those where people understand what society is and why it is important to individuals

which can manifest as failure to provide health or financial support to those in need

To be fair, lockdown measures are achieving that.

Countries with a greater focus on individual are doing worse than those where people understand what society is and why it is important to individuals

I actually agree with you there. But it is totally impractical to expect to overturn thousands of years of cultural norms overnight. The best Covid strategies will have to take into account how specific societies work.

Why would the NHS be only half opened for a lot longer than 18 months if there is lockdown? We will probably have a vaccine in a few months.

More lockdowns? How long can we afford to keep doing this?

‘If you're pinning your hopes on a Covid vaccine, here's a dose of realism’

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/21/covid-vaccine-immunisation-protection

@Belladonna12

There’ll be no money for the NHS or much else if we have a other lockdown.

None of the governments actions were motivated by saving lives. So its irrelevant how much each life has cost
midgebabe
You are gravely mistaken here. ALL of the government's actions were and have been motivated by saving lives, albeit in the short-term. They have got things the wrong way round.
If the government was genuinely motivated about saving TOTAL number of lives over the LONG TERM it would have taken a Swedish style strategy.
But it bottled it right at the start. Plenty in the scientific community were pushing the idea of herd immunity back in February and Johnson was on board with that initially (or should I say Cummings, after all it is he who runs the show).
Then suddenly herd immunity became the phrase that dare not speak its name and scientists which dared to even mention it were painted as right wing crackpots. Meanwhile, Johnson saw the death toll rising and he and his mate Cummings decided politically to take a completely different direction. This was absolutely with a view to saving lives in the short-term, and fuck the long term.
If Johnson had stuck to his guns, the UK would be far further down the road than we are now and would have achieved significant levels of herd immunity. Yes, more lives would have been lost in the short-term but the long-term benefits would have been incalculable and I genuinely believe the loss of life over the long-term would be less.
Of course, we will only know the definitive answer to this in 2-3 years time when these issues have fully played out.

More lockdowns? How long can we afford to keep doing this?
We can't. Investors genuinely fear that some governments will not be able to repay their debts. Often when governments slip into huge debt, they start printing money and you get hyperinflation.
This is why the price of gold has gone through the roof this year. See here: www.bullionvault.com/
I don't think people realise the serious economic shit we are in right now. We had a decade of austerity after 2008. Yet present borrowing makes 2008 look like pennies.

They were motivated to stop a complete failure of the NHS, to stop bodies in the streets and to prevent a breakdown of society, oh, and the french plans to blockade the ports and stop food coming across the Chanel , plans that were more widely published on the other side of the channel

If they were bothered about covid lives, they would have closed the borders in February and not sent Old people carrying the virus back into care homes ....

There actions are vaguely consistent with protect8n* society and not at all what you would do if lives were your concern

[quote Ecosse]@Belladonna12

There’ll be no money for the NHS or much else if we have a other lockdown.[/quote]
I don't think a short lockdown will mean the NHS has to shut down permanently because there's no money. It always interests me the way some people totally minimise the potential devastating effects of the virus itself on both lives and the economy while being hysterical about the effect of lockdown . We can't lockdown forever but that doesn't mean now is the time to let the virus rip through the population. There will be an effect on the economy either way which is why things have to be carefully balanced.

look kids need to be in school they are the next doctors scientists engineers. We need these for society to function in the future. If this means we have to lose the least healthy 2% (estimating high and assuming hospitals turn away sick people), then for the long run benefits I would be happy to run this risk. It seems the sensible pragmatic route to go down. We cannot justify spending this much money to save so few people. Sorry of what the government was proposing to spend was a NHS treatment the NICE wouldn't fund it and they would be left to die.

@Napqueen1234

Yes we are. School children are having hugely disrupted education, the shit show going on in higher education and the lack of opportunities and jobs for young people generally. Although older people are higher risk of becoming ill or dying of covid this risk is still small and they generally have the benefit of pensions, higher salaries, bigger houses etc to sit this out with. I feel the younger generation will feel the effects of this considerably more for considerably longer.

You're a bit bitter aren't you?

look kids need to be in school they are the next doctors scientists engineers. We need these for society to function in the future.

No they don't. It's not the building that provides the education and why do they all need to be together with other children their own age.
That's no preparation for adult life. Who only ever works with people who were in the same year at school.
Bollocks.

‘It’s not the building that provides the education’

What about all that Woodwork & Metalwork etc kids should be doing whilst at home safely distanced?

Borrow Dads Black & Decker Workmate?

Of course the building is important. The school building is where education takes places with teachers in classes.

Eh?
Why do we have teachers if buildings are providing education, some weird folk about today.
Education is important, a building isn't.
School really isn't important.

No but they really do need to be with their peers.

A building isnt important I agree - but online certainly isnt a substitute either.

An education involves being with others. DS is in Year 3 and so much of what he tells me he has been learning has involved discussing and debating things with his peers. School isnt a building it is the people the pupils and the teachers that are at the heart of it all. And its something they definitely need

School really isn't important.

🤣🤣