Are We Destroying The Economy In Order To Prolong The Lives Of The Old And Frail?

[dave50]

Are we putting the livelihoods of millions of young people, some with children and mortgages at risk so some old lady in a care home can live a bit longer? Yes that is an extreme and some might say heartless example but basically that is what we are doing. When are politicians going to get a backbone and stand up and say that yes there may be more deaths as winter approaches but I'm afraid it's something we will have to live with, there is not much else we can do apart from what we are already doing. Another total lock down is out of the question and would be economic suicide. As I have often said, we can't save everybody and the sooner people accept that the better.

[emmie]

some of these young aren't going back to work, those who should could find that their jobs have been outsourced to other countries.
as to the elderly, what is wrong with trying to save as many people as possible, the 46 thousand who have died so far have included younger people, elderly are just more vulnerable.

[emmie]

winter flu will take many more, the sooner we get a vaccine the better.

[ummmm]

What the temporarily vulnerable? Otherwise young'ish, fit and healthy but just became ill. Do we risk those people as well?

[Jackdaw33]

Hark at Emmie. For those who are living primarily off state benefits it is no skin off their nose if those who do not have that luxury go to the wall.

[emmie]

is that a dig jack. if so i did work for a long while, and only retired when i was ill

[Peter Pedant]

havent we had a long thread on this from NJ ?

1. judges are the most wonderful people in the world
2 so what if everyone over 50 dies, xc the jj of course
3 life must go on - for those that still live of course !
4 if any of the unused pensions are left , can I have some please but only a little
5. hey come on lets party like in the Masque of the red death ( starring Vince P and based on Boccaccio(*))

I mean the answers are ven the same
are the country's c/p buttons all pleading "please please punch me no more!" - jointly and severally of course !

[Peter Pedant]

yeah I am on a pay as you go pension
come on youngsters - pay up ! damn you
work harder! more taxes !

[Jackdaw33]

PP has surpassed himself today for sheer absence of reality.

[satprof]

dave50: At this stage of the pandemic, I believe that the harsh measures being taken are actually damaging the economy out of all proportion to the public health benefit being gained. Incompetent politicians have latched onto the number of positive PCR tests as a major indicator & the media seem to have encouraged this view. As someone who worked in international public health for the last 20 years of my working life, I would suggest that there are two 'Key Performance Indicators' that should be used instead: 1. Death rate from Covid-19; & 2. Hospital beds occupied by Covid-19 cases. These indicators allow the true risk to society from the Pandemic to be followed and much more appropriate measures to be taken.

Currently, the measures being enforced are as much use as the straws that the authorities are clutching because they didn't plan properly for this. The world was warned, repeatedly, by WHO but most countries opted to cross their fingers and hope that the pandemic wouldn't happen. It's now time to recognize that the future course of this disease is going to be similar to Seasonal Influenza. People, especially the old & infirm, are going to die of it, vaccine or no vaccine.

This happens already with 'flu and some years are worse than others, depending on quite how the virus mutates while the vaccines are in production, which takes about 6 months for the volumes needed.

Of course, those especially vulnerable need to be protected, but not at any cost. Before this pandemic, no-one thought twice about Granny being carried off by the flu, but it happened to many thousands every winter. (Exact figures are hard to find, as frequently there are several contributing causes.) In most of Europe, we're already well past the stage where it made sense to lock-down the economy. These over-the-top restrictions must be removed immediately and the economy got back on its feet.

[Old_Geezer]

It's unreasonable to assume we can forever protect against a single virus; we don't go through all this for other death risks. We need to realise that, as a species, we just need to learn to live normally with it.

We achieved what we set out to do, those considered vulnerable can take precautions if they wish. The rest need to get back to normal.

Yes, the present situation is screwing the economy and needs to be sorted. I can understand wanting to relax the precautions gradually but time is of the essence when avoiding bankrupting one's nation and remaining viable.

[margarettom]

I am quite old and extremely vulnerable but I agree with you dave50. It's up to me to protect myself and, in the event of a winter outbreak, I would self isolate again. In the meantime I have had my yearly MOT, booked dentist's and optician's appointments and booked my yearly flu jab in preparation for this possibility. We cannot trash young people's lives and the economy again.

[AB Editor]

I don't appreciate this idea that vulnerable people are somehow expendable. It's not just elderly people who are at risk, but people of all ages with chronic conditions, life-threatening illnesses and so on, and to suggest these people aren't worth considering is insulting.

A few weeks into lockdown I received a text message saying I should be shielding. I'm fairly sure it was sent in error but if my health condition was only slightly different, I would be vulnerable too, and I don't appreciate the notion that this would mean my life wouldn't matter. People with illnesses aren't all just sitting at home waiting for death. Many are making a huge, valuable contribution to society. I'm getting my PhD and striving to improve myself and the world around me (not to mention overseeing you noisy rabble), and to suggest that the risk of my death would be "something we have to live with" and "the sooner people accept that, the better"... well, I have to strongly disagree. And no, I don't know what the answer is regarding the economy, and I won't pretend to. I just don't like the undertones that a chronically ill or frail life isn't as valuable or worth saving as the next person's.

[Bazile]

From what age is considered old ?

[Jackdaw33]

^^ The above post speaks for itself. No need for further comment. I will leave others to judge.

[iluvmargie]

Jack - that was mean to emmie.

What about all the people who refuse to go back to work because they prefer working from home, aren't they badly affecting the economy? No workers in the town centres buying lunches or coffees or doing some shopping on the way home, no workers using buses and trains - all this affects the economy.

I know a bloke who flatly refuses to go back to the office, despite all the safety measures in place. He says why should I travel an hour to and from work everyday when I can work from the comfort of my own home? Also this is why it's virtually impossible to speak to anyone on the 'phone these days when you have a query, everyone is working from home, so places are short staffed!

Buy hey dave, you blame the elderly if it makes you feel better.

[ichkeria]

Over 60s are the people most likely to vote and most vote Tory so not a good move

[Bazile]

Well said Ed

[dannyk13]

Margaret// We cannot trash young people's lives//
Are these the same young people who are contributing to the pandemic by ignoring rules and advice and continuing to meet in large groups.

[iluvmargie]

Just read the Ed's post - one word 'brilliant'!

[Jackdaw33]

BTW, what has a Ph.D got to do with all this?