Covid-19

[skyhuck]

9 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

I'd make the argument that society as we knew it has been largely destroyed anyway. 

 

We've killed off physical shops, the hospitality sector, our children's social lives and by extension, their development. We've entrenched an attitude of government dependency, ruined what little work ethic we had before and left ourselves and our children indebted for decades to come. 

 

I really do think that our public health outcome would not have been any worse had we simply isolated and shielded our old and vulnerable. Yes it would have been crap for them, and it would have seemed unfair, but apart from the fact that others in society would have freedoms that they didn't have, how would a targeted lockdown be any different for them to what they have now? Lumping everyone in the same risk group doesn't make sense from a public health perspective, and from an economic standpoint, it's a disaster.

 

I agree that the cost of covid is tragic (in terms of lives lost) but you have to ask the question - how many of those that died were already in declining health? How much longer would they have lived? I'm really trying not to appear callous about it, but I do fully expect to see a lower than average death rate for the next few years as the (slightly) premature deaths from covid balance out against the long term death rate. 

 

The every spiralling limits on our personal liberties and the continued insistence from the government of using executive decree (rather than laws scrutinised by parliament) is deeply concerning. Once we're all vaccinated, we really do need to get back to some sort of normal.  

You appear to contradict yourself, are physical shops and hospitality dead? or can we return to normality? I believe physical shops and hospitality will bounce back. And people will appreciate them all the more.

 

Why has no country on the planet followed your proposed option?

 

As I posted earlier, I don't believe it would be possible to isolate and protect only the most vulnerable, our society is simply just not built that way, plus they would most likely not do as asked. Its OK saying they would be no worse off than now, but people don't work like that. People will endure terrible hardship if they feel everyones in the same boat, but inequity causes great discontent.

 

Also people seem fixated on the deaths, when it comes NHS pressure, those who survive represent the greatest workload. So it's not just about the old and infirm who are killed. 

 

[Johnsond]

2 hours ago, sime42 said:

2 hours ago, Johnsond said:

Christ how many times do you need an explanation of the alternative approaches to this ??? 
I’m sure it’s been put up numerous times, you try to keep putting myself and Andy in the same opinion group but I think you will find it’s a good few more on here whom disagree with Lockdown as the only tool in the box. 

Read more  

Safety in numbers?

Safety in numbers don’t be such a tit  😂, Not at all but when the wind is blowing that way you certainly seem to like trying to group me and Andy together 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️. 

The explanations of alternative directions have been given time and time again by many on here not just your two favourites 😘

[Big J]

3 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

You appear to contradict yourself, are physical shops and hospitality dead? or can we return to normality? I believe physical shops and hospitality will bounce back. And people will appreciate them all the more.

 

Why has no country on the planet followed your proposed option?

 

As I posted earlier, I don't believe it would be possible to isolate and protect only the most vulnerable, our society is simply just not built that way, plus they would most likely not do as asked. Its OK saying they would be no worse off than now, but people don't work like that. People will endure terrible hardship if they feel everyones in the same boat, but inequity causes great discontent.

 

Also people seem fixated on the deaths, when it comes NHS pressure, those who survive represent the greatest workload. So it's not just about the old and infirm who are killed. 

 

 

I did say 'get back to some sort of normal'. 

 

I don't believe that we'll the highstreets recover at all. Lingering paranoia from months of lockdown combined with the ease of shopping online will see to that. Hospitality may recover to an extent, but it'll take years and years. 

 

I reckon that no country has gone down the route of targeted lockdowns partly due to the point you raise about the psychological and moral issues with locking down parts of the population. It creates a situation that is doubtlessly tricky to manage, from a government perspective, but one which if managed properly results in decent health outcomes and a much better economic future. 

 

I do fundamentally believe that you cannot treat the population as a homologous entity without incurring serious long term issues. And I'm not sure that many in the more vulnerable groups would want the young and healthy to be locked down for their benefit if indeed there was another way of doing things. 

 

Perhaps what is regarded as being fair and equitable isn't necessarily the best course of action. Politically popular perhaps, but economically and ultimately socially destuctive. 

[Mesterh]

6 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

You appear to contradict yourself, are physical shops and hospitality dead? or can we return to normality? I believe physical shops and hospitality will bounce back. And people will appreciate them all the more.

 

Why has no country on the planet followed your proposed option?

 

As I posted earlier, I don't believe it would be possible to isolate and protect only the most vulnerable, our society is simply just not built that way, plus they would most likely not do as asked. Its OK saying they would be no worse off than now, but people don't work like that. People will endure terrible hardship if they feel everyones in the same boat, but inequity causes great discontent.

 

Also people seem fixated on the deaths, when it comes NHS pressure, those who survive represent the greatest workload. So it's not just about the old and infirm who are killed. 

 

Apart from not being able to shield the vulnerable I think there is a bit of an issue of an ethical issue in locking away the old, disabled and sick while everyone gets on with life.

 

What's that statement that goes along the lines of, 'a society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable'

Well it's something like that, I think a lot of people have said the same type of thing over the years.

Seems quite fitting recently.

 

[trigger_andy]

Just now, Mesterh said:

Apart from not being able to shield the vulnerable I think there is a bit of an issue of an ethical issue in locking away the old, disabled and sick while everyone gets on with life.

 

What's that statement that goes along the lines of, 'a society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable'

Well it's something like that, I think a lot of people have said the same type of thing over the years.

Seems quite fitting recently.

 

So its an ethical dilemma and not one of necessity after all?  

[Big J]

10 minutes ago, Mesterh said:

Apart from not being able to shield the vulnerable I think there is a bit of an issue of an ethical issue in locking away the old, disabled and sick while everyone gets on with life.

 

What's that statement that goes along the lines of, 'a society is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable'

Well it's something like that, I think a lot of people have said the same type of thing over the years.

Seems quite fitting recently.

 

 

I take your point, but given that the risk of severe illness and death is highest amongst those who are oldest and most unwell, is it really justifiable to lock away the rest of us too? Is there not an ethical dilemma there also? 

 

Also, could it be argued that the ethical implications of targeted lockdowns are not as serious as the ethical implications of crippling our economy, bankrupting our government and knackering the educational and social development of our children? 

 

The argument of fairness goes both ways. Is it fair to seriously restrict the liberty of a person who is at very low risk of complications relating to covid? How is this better than a targeted approach? 

[Johnsond]

49 minutes ago, Big J said:

 

I'd make the argument that society as we knew it has been largely destroyed anyway. 

 

We've killed off physical shops, the hospitality sector, our children's social lives and by extension, their development. We've entrenched an attitude of government dependency, ruined what little work ethic we had before and left ourselves and our children indebted for decades to come. 

 

I really do think that our public health outcome would not have been any worse had we simply isolated and shielded our old and vulnerable. Yes it would have been crap for them, and it would have seemed unfair, but apart from the fact that others in society would have freedoms that they didn't have, how would a targeted lockdown be any different for them to what they have now? Lumping everyone in the same risk group doesn't make sense from a public health perspective, and from an economic standpoint, it's a disaster.

 

I agree that the cost of covid is tragic (in terms of lives lost) but you have to ask the question - how many of those that died were already in declining health? How much longer would they have lived? I'm really trying not to appear callous about it, but I do fully expect to see a lower than average death rate for the next few years as the (slightly) premature deaths from covid balance out against the long term death rate. 

 

The ever spiralling limits on our personal liberties and the continued insistence from the government of using executive decree (rather than laws scrutinised by parliament) is deeply concerning. Once we're all vaccinated, we really do need to get back to some sort of normal.  

Very well put J 👍

[Mesterh]

12 minutes ago, trigger_andy said:

So its an ethical dilemma and not one of necessity after all?  

'Apart from not being able to shield the vulnerable'

Seems like you failed to read that bit.

 

But yes, ethics and morals should come into play. I know you aren't really bothered about that as 'most of the covid victims were going to die anyway'  your words not mine.

[trigger_andy]

6 minutes ago, Mesterh said:

But yes, ethics and morals should come into play. I know you aren't really bothered about that as 'most of the covid victims were going to die anyway'  your words not mine.

But the sad reality is they are! Its just a cold hard fact. 

 

We're so focused on the ethics of shielding the people who are on average 82 years or older over the ravages we're doing to the young and I find that grossly out of proportion and wrong. 

 

My 17 year old is at a very critical point in her education and her acceptance into Medical School to train as a Doctor hinges on her grades this year. How well do you think that's going from her bedroom? She was a previously outgoing girl who studied hard but still found the odd hour for her friends. Now she's a depressed wreck. 

 

My three year old has had no interaction with anyone her age for almost a third of her life, the very stages she needs to be. She seen a woman walk past the house and she asked if that was maybe a friend for her.  

 

To say that I am seething even thinking about this is an understatement thats constantly brought to the fore when I see my work collogues here in Norway proponing meetings as they are dropping the kids off at barnehage. 

 

And not one person here has come up with an even remotely valid reason other than ''its different over there'' for why the approaches in Norway and the UK are vastly different and yet the infections rates are still lower than the UK. 

Edited February 12, 2021 by trigger_andy

[Mull]

But the sad reality is they are! Its just a cold hard fact. 
 
We're so focused on the ethics of shielding the people who are on average 82 years or older over the ravages we're doing to the young and I find that grossly out of proportion and wrong. 
 
My 17 year old is at a very critical point in her education and her acceptance into Medical School to train as a Doctor hinges on her grades this year. How well do you think that's going from her bedroom? She was a previously outgoing girl who studied hard but still found the odd hour for her friends. Now she's a depressed wreck. 
 
My three year old has had no interaction with anyone her age for almost a third of her life, the very stages she needs to be. She seen a woman walk past the house and she asked if that was maybe a friend for her.  
 
To say that I am seething even thinking about this is an understatement thats constantly brought to the fore when I see my work collogues here in Norway proponing meetings as they are dropping the kids off at barnehage. 
 
And not one person here has come up with an even remotely valid reason other than ''its different over there'' for why the approaches in Norway and the UK are vastly different and yet the infections rates are still lower than the UK. 

Yeah, I understand your point Andy, I don’t see why they are keeping these people alive just now? When it’s obviously depriving your daughter from being educated on how to keep them alive.🤷‍♂️