Society & Culture0 min ago
Are We Destroying The Economy In Order To Prolong The Lives Of The Old And Frail?
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.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Woofgang - I'm not advocating any 'value' selectivity in patient treatment whatsoever. I was merely pointing out that, as resources are not unlimited, choices need to be made.
My nephrologist tells me that I need dialysis and that as I'm 'only' 74 a kidney transplant would also be on the cards. If I were older, I could forget about a transplant. That isn't only based on the outcome but also takes into account the increased fragility of the body as it ages.
ok point one. Decisions are not choices.
point two the increased fragility of the human body IS part of the outcomes algorithm...as are co-morbidities, the cause of the kidney failure and so on
and point three (how many more times) those individual decisions are made on clinical bases and not on social or economic ones.
My nephrologist tells me that I need dialysis and that as I'm 'only' 74 a kidney transplant would also be on the cards. If I were older, I could forget about a transplant. That isn't only based on the outcome but also takes into account the increased fragility of the body as it ages.
ok point one. Decisions are not choices.
point two the increased fragility of the human body IS part of the outcomes algorithm...as are co-morbidities, the cause of the kidney failure and so on
and point three (how many more times) those individual decisions are made on clinical bases and not on social or economic ones.
KARL "Every time I come across a sentiment effectively saying the response to Covid should be to rely on survival of the fittest (best outcome on the spreadsheet is to let the "losers" die) I wonder how many among the public are wishing for some sort of a cleansing of the UK."
possibly, quite possibly....
possibly, quite possibly....
were you actually being devil's advocate? do you know what that means?
because this sounds like its your own personal opinion
" 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."
and yes, I do find it offensive to suggest that it should be a matter of public policy to effectively write off a segment of the population.
because this sounds like its your own personal opinion
" 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."
and yes, I do find it offensive to suggest that it should be a matter of public policy to effectively write off a segment of the population.
I am sorry fender
this sort of discussion is upsetting for you ....
and whoever said that lack of treatment is based on futlitiy and not cost ( futile as in it doesnt work) is correct.
(xc the Land of the Free where you can get any sort of futile treatment so long as you can pay - see Jobs above)
fr'instance - I have agreed with my doctors not to have a bone marrow transplant - 50% success rate and as he said - - people over 70 tend to do badly
this sort of discussion is upsetting for you ....
and whoever said that lack of treatment is based on futlitiy and not cost ( futile as in it doesnt work) is correct.
(xc the Land of the Free where you can get any sort of futile treatment so long as you can pay - see Jobs above)
fr'instance - I have agreed with my doctors not to have a bone marrow transplant - 50% success rate and as he said - - people over 70 tend to do badly
Satprof, 13:55... I have seen that happen just a few weeks ago. We had a client, double amputee, blind, diabetes and on kidney dialysis three times a week. She actually got covid while in hospital and recovered. However, her dialysis was stopped some time ago... even though it was certainly extending her life, due to services being reduced. So, she has died from kidney failure, but would still be alive if she could have continued dialysis. That wasn't a decision made with her benefit in mind.
"Are we destroying the economy....." Who are "we" ?
Given that other countries with similar options available have done far better than the UK with only one significant hit on the economy, my assessment is that "we" have failed to deal with the pandemic in the most effective way. Decision making quality has been well below what it could be (perhaps in the main political failure) and lacpublic compliance has widely been irresponsible.
The UK has several advantages over countries with extensive land borders, although different countries within the UK do not have the same individual room for manoeuvre against the challenges - each has to largely follow the others (mainly the largest). Being a set of islands, the most successful island models could have been replicated - let's not ask for the UK to be a shining example of success.
Not one country worldwide has been untouched (incredible claims dismissed). While New Zealand has shown impressive success, I find myself looking more closely at Iceland which is part of Europe and the internally borderless Schengen community. An island with the tourist industry forming a large part of the economy was prepared from the very start of this year, had a worrying start to the pandemic which saw groups of infected people return from ski resorts in Austria (google Ischgl Scandal) and Italy plant the first viruses. Immediate measures were taken and the "first wave" was over in nine weeks - 1800 cases, 10 deaths. The "second wave" hit in mid August and they are now down to single digit daily case numbers (including zero) in the past couple of weeks - 350 cases, no deaths. They are now down to the lowest level of restrictions having briefly ramped them up again. But daily there are cases caught at the border - currently anyone arriving from abroad is tested, placed into quarantine for five days and retested. The tourist industry has suffered badly but a successful campaign for staycations softened the blow this summer.
How was it done ? To me the answer is pretty clear, instead of obfuscation, indecision, confusion or whatever, the scientists, police, etc. were put in charge by the politicians who authorised the former at every turn. The public was kept extremely well informed throughout. Crucially, the public complied and reaped the rewards. There have apparently been more or less no recriminations public v authorities or vice versa. In fact, a survey in the past week or so showed that 67% approved of the measures/restrictions laid down with the rest more or less evenly split between wanting less restrictions and/or more restrictions. There is absolutely not a word of a call for scalps, political or official/scientific.
Nothing tells me the UK could not have been far, far more successful than it has been or likely will be. Icelanders (and others) simply are better at it than the UK. Then why has the UK so abysmally failed, being among the worst examples worldwide ? I don't think the circumstances, geographic, economic, climatic, scientific or so much else are at fault. Although some/many may disagree with me, I am uncertain the politicians are to blame either - unless it were because they should much more have kept out of the decision making proper. What I think is at the core of the failure, so much so that failure was inevitable, is the culture. I think the UK thought victory was assured, because the UK deserves it as the World's best - taking the threat seriously was something of an anathema and still has not come about. A state of denial is, however, now turning into a search for a place to dump blame or else find simple solutions. Worst of all, UK society is hopelessly disunited - not just between constituent countries but (much worse) internally throughout.
A vaccine is now the UK's last hope but meanwhile and forever more somewhere north toward 50,000 lives have been unnecessarily lost. Any blame for this lies with "us", the people who were/are ungovernable ...
Given that other countries with similar options available have done far better than the UK with only one significant hit on the economy, my assessment is that "we" have failed to deal with the pandemic in the most effective way. Decision making quality has been well below what it could be (perhaps in the main political failure) and lacpublic compliance has widely been irresponsible.
The UK has several advantages over countries with extensive land borders, although different countries within the UK do not have the same individual room for manoeuvre against the challenges - each has to largely follow the others (mainly the largest). Being a set of islands, the most successful island models could have been replicated - let's not ask for the UK to be a shining example of success.
Not one country worldwide has been untouched (incredible claims dismissed). While New Zealand has shown impressive success, I find myself looking more closely at Iceland which is part of Europe and the internally borderless Schengen community. An island with the tourist industry forming a large part of the economy was prepared from the very start of this year, had a worrying start to the pandemic which saw groups of infected people return from ski resorts in Austria (google Ischgl Scandal) and Italy plant the first viruses. Immediate measures were taken and the "first wave" was over in nine weeks - 1800 cases, 10 deaths. The "second wave" hit in mid August and they are now down to single digit daily case numbers (including zero) in the past couple of weeks - 350 cases, no deaths. They are now down to the lowest level of restrictions having briefly ramped them up again. But daily there are cases caught at the border - currently anyone arriving from abroad is tested, placed into quarantine for five days and retested. The tourist industry has suffered badly but a successful campaign for staycations softened the blow this summer.
How was it done ? To me the answer is pretty clear, instead of obfuscation, indecision, confusion or whatever, the scientists, police, etc. were put in charge by the politicians who authorised the former at every turn. The public was kept extremely well informed throughout. Crucially, the public complied and reaped the rewards. There have apparently been more or less no recriminations public v authorities or vice versa. In fact, a survey in the past week or so showed that 67% approved of the measures/restrictions laid down with the rest more or less evenly split between wanting less restrictions and/or more restrictions. There is absolutely not a word of a call for scalps, political or official/scientific.
Nothing tells me the UK could not have been far, far more successful than it has been or likely will be. Icelanders (and others) simply are better at it than the UK. Then why has the UK so abysmally failed, being among the worst examples worldwide ? I don't think the circumstances, geographic, economic, climatic, scientific or so much else are at fault. Although some/many may disagree with me, I am uncertain the politicians are to blame either - unless it were because they should much more have kept out of the decision making proper. What I think is at the core of the failure, so much so that failure was inevitable, is the culture. I think the UK thought victory was assured, because the UK deserves it as the World's best - taking the threat seriously was something of an anathema and still has not come about. A state of denial is, however, now turning into a search for a place to dump blame or else find simple solutions. Worst of all, UK society is hopelessly disunited - not just between constituent countries but (much worse) internally throughout.
A vaccine is now the UK's last hope but meanwhile and forever more somewhere north toward 50,000 lives have been unnecessarily lost. Any blame for this lies with "us", the people who were/are ungovernable ...
....while we won't behave responsibly. I need to go through complicated hoops to see a doctor or dentist while at least that part of life goes on normally in Iceland (and elsewhere). Their internal economy is cruising along. Tourism is seriously affected but even they (the industry) largely accept there is no alternative and say they are using the situation/time to prepare for better times. It is a case of can do (there) against cannot do (here). Why so disunited ? I blame the Us-and-Them phenomenon which drives much of the (UK) thinking/reasoning. "We" includes all of us, also those who behave unlike some of us.
Latest Posts
Business & Finance1 min ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Crosswords22 mins ago
Road rules40 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.