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?

No!!!

This statement is quite pathetic.

Yes. DD has been made redundant from a job in the arts that was bloody hard to get in the first place. Many of her highly-qualified, highly skilled friends are unable to work in an industry that has been destroyed by this and may never come back. With another lockdown looming, the old-faithful fallbacks of bar work and waitressing are hard to come by. It is a desperate time for the young. I'm glad that many MN kids are fine - but there are lots of young people that aren't and even the lucky ones will be paying the tax burden for this for most, if not all, of their lives.

@022828MAN

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

I agree.

FGS that is the most ridiculously over simplistic statement that keeps being repeated no matter what the actual scientists and medical professionals say.

Plenty of people in their 30s, 40s 50,s 60s contract serious Covid and are hospitalised and WITH TREATMENT are far far more likely to recover which is good.

If the hospitals are full and they cannot be treated then they are far less likely to recover and the average age of death will fall.

If the hospitals are full of Covid patients of many different ages then they have no room to treat patients with other conditions and hospitals become incredibly dangerous places to be if you are unwell

(The nature of the incubation means it is not possible to make hospitals 100% Covid free).

Why on earth do you think that professionals around the world are so minutely focused on hospitalisations and capacity.

It is NOT just to protect the elderly.

We're all in this together, we have to do what's best for the whole, not the individual or age group.

No life is more important than any other. Tough decisions have to be made, whatever we do, we cannot go back to normal yet. We have to wait for it to pass, and it will, eventually.

There's no magical solution that allows the younger to have their lives back to normal, not even by sacrificing the vulnerable.

We just have to accept that this is the way life is for a while. It's really shit for everyone.

Yes

If you believe we are ‘sacrificing the young for the elderly’, what is ‘elderly’ (50+, 60+, 70+) and what is your solution?

Already, hospital intensive care units in some areas (e.g Liverpool) are close to capacity and fearful of being overwhelmed within a week or two (see The Times today).

I suspect some will say the ‘elderly’ should be helped to ‘shield’ (is shield the third person conjugation of the verb ‘to be lockdown’?!). Would you apply this to a CEO, hospital consultant or head teacher in their 60s?

And what about the ‘naughty 70 year old’ who failed to shield and needed treatment? Should they quietly die at home? It is said that 10% or so in their 50s need some supplemental treatment in hospital. Should they be ‘shielding’?

And how do you think the economy would really fare if, day, 10% of the population were infected?

No easy answers. Anger and othering are not solutions.

If the virus is left to rip through the population then:

1. More people will catch Covid19. That’s obvious.

1. More people catching it will mean more need to isolate to avoid spreading it. This will have an impact on pretty much everything. Doctors, nurses, carers, radiologists, dentists, all the other medical and admin staff associated with healthcare… that leads to pressure on the NHS. Then don’t forget teachers, post office workers, retail staff, warehouse staff, delivery drivers and every other occupation there is… they’ll be short staffed too.

1. More people catching it means need hospital treatment. This inevitably means more pressure on the NHS, and more will die.

1. More pressure on the NHS from 2 & 3 above means good luck getting seen if you have anything else other than Covid19. Cancer doesn’t wait for one. Heart disease doesn’t wait. It could be you, your family or a close friend.

The restrictions aren’t just about the elderly. They’re about protecting the NHS for everyone who needs ANY type of care. They’re trying to keep the economy going in order to pay for it all and to avoid the problems that come with mass unemployment, but some people just need to stop being so fucking selfish and follow the restrictions!

And l find people with the attitude of not wanting to protect the elderly very scary. What sort of society sacrifices its elderly?😞

The children and young adults will be fine in the long run. The elderly and the vulnerable are the priority, and l would never even question it. It’s about being a member of a compassionate society ( not that Boris gives a shit) but l do.

By and large, I agree with OP. My young adult children are suffering more than my elderly mum, and will continue to suffer for many many years because of the inequity of opportunity. My mum grew up with an excellent NHS, bought a house cheaply, etc etc. She has a very privileged and protected life. My kids? Not so much. Apparently it's their fault because they spend too much on mobile phones.

Why are young adults children ‘suffering’?

Mine aren’t.

But that doesn't mean I want CV to spread unchecked! I just want the way it's discussed to change.

An honest recognition of the costs involved and the impact on the economy, and how we choose to open up and lock down for best long term outcome.

To a certain extent. So many people on here want to curtail everything the young have. Schools, universities, socialising.

@Croleeen

Absolutely. It's crazy. The average age of a COVID death is 82. The average life expectancy is 81.16. I'm not saying death after 82 doesn't matter. My mum just turned 86. But would she expect us to give up the best part of our lives, going out, travelling, seeing friends, just to give her a couple more years at that age? Absolutely not. Anyone who has watched the David Attenborough documentary saying humans have overrun the planet because we have become too good at combatting disease among other things should realise how ridiculous it is to stifle our economic growth and the happiness of young people to ensure there are as many people kept alive as long as possible. The world has gone mad.

Agreed

Young adults! Not their children

it's not about the immediate health impact on younger people or the current impositions they face - these are the people they are going to be paying for this for years to come. These are the people whose job prospects have been completely ruined and are going to have cope with an impending economic disaster.

Yes. Vast majority who die from this are elderly w. co morbidities.

I don't understand why we can't shield the elderly and get on with things.

Yes we are. And I'm in my 50s. I'd welcome more restrictions for me if my uni age kids could have more of a life back.

What do you propose then OP? Just opening everything up and letting people take their chances? I can see that going really well.

And yes they will have to pay for it later on.

@TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince

does being a compassionate society mean keeping the elderly alive for as long as possible just because we can?

Dignity and compassion for the elderly has been sacrificed due to medical advancement as far as I'm concerned.
Too many people are kept alive just too sit in soiled nappies in care homes wondering who they are and where they are.

‘So many people on here want to curtail everything the young have. Schools, universities, socialising’

Yeah because they are mean and selfish obviously. Nothing to do with a pandemic, where we all have to work together to mitigate it.🤔

It means keeping them alive to prevent an early death unless they want it.

Unfortunately absolutely

@TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince well we all know a lot of elderly aren't given a choice.