Maybe so.Do people think they would be behaving the same way if the mortality rates were reversed - namely there’s was a significantly higher risk of under 60’s dying than the other way round?
I’ve only started a separate thread as I think the minder is I’m alright Jack as I’m not old and vulnerable
Do people think they would be behaving the same way if the mortality rates were reversed - namely there’s was a significantly higher risk of under 60’s dying than the other way round?
I’ve only started a separate thread as I think the minder is I’m alright Jack as I’m not old and vulnerable
My dad is 90 and my mum, 89.
Do feel they are being casually tossed aside in many conversation.
Do people think they would be behaving the same way if the mortality rates were reversed - namely there’s was a significantly higher risk of under 60’s dying than the other way round?
I’ve only started a separate thread as I think the minder is I’m alright Jack as I’m not old and vulnerable
But will all be old in the future.Ofcourse, because the main consensus would be that it will wipe out the working population.
And their kids who are still at school MNPeople are being a bit blasé about it in that sense.
Governments would also act differently as the economic harm would be more severe if younger people would be at higher risk.
I was just saying today that they should be looking at yelling at risk groups to not come to work to limit their risk of exposure. Those of us in our 20s and 30s could carry on working longer and so mitigate some of the economic harm of a shutdown.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think it is people tossing aside the elderly or vulnerable I think it is being used as a reason to calm the mad fears of people in their 30s in perfect health panic buying things that are needed to help those more likely to have complications.
'If you're not elderly and in good health you have very little to fear' =\= 'fuck the old'
'If you're not elderly and in good health you have very little to fear' = 'calm down and wash your hands'
If it was more fatal for kids though people would lose their shit.
I don't necessarily think it's the case that the old and otherwise vulnerable are being tossed aside. The fact of the matter is that, on average, 8000 people in that category die from seasonal flu in England every year, but we don't tell anyone to "self-isolate" to prevent the spread of flu do we? So we clearly don't care THAT much about the old and vulnerable dying from infections.
That said, it is very important that people who may have symptoms do everything they can to prevent the spread to the wider population, and self-isolate or get tested.
WHERE is the evidence that it is "more deadly"? Absolute rubbish! You cannot calculate a headline case fatality rate on so few deaths when all those who have died are in an identified at-risk group.Getting so tired of seeing this.
U
Self isolation is because it’s more deadly and we don’t have an immunity. That’s why we send isolate here and not for the flu (which we have vaccines for), or as I saw today on FB car crashes (!!) which aren’t contagious.
I don't think that's the case at all. I think it is worth balancing however, that the fear about its impact has needed to be balanced out by pointing out that people who are older and / or with pre-existing conditions are the ones most under threat, and that many people also die from flu. That doesn'#t mean that people want to write off people, but they do want to emphasise that the 'threat' isn't as totalising as it sometimes comes across.People do seem to very casually toss out 'its only old people and those with existing conditions' as if they don't matter.
Do people think they would be behaving the same way if the mortality rates were reversed - namely there’s was a significantly higher risk of under 60’s dying than the other way round?
I’ve only started a separate thread as I think the minder is I’m alright Jack as I’m not old and vulnerable
Best post i've seen on the subject, full stop!I don't think that's the case at all. I think it is worth balancing however, that the fear about its impact has needed to be balanced out by pointing out that people who are older and / or with pre-existing conditions are the ones most under threat, and that many people also die from flu. That doesn'#t mean that people want to write off people, but they do want to emphasise that the 'threat' isn't as totalising as it sometimes comes across.
Now... as somebody with a pre-existing condition that *could* cause trouble, am I in a position to say that?
The advice about washing hands etc. is well-founded and of course should be followed, *every* death is a tragedy to somebody (and all the more if it's somebody you're actually close to), and the case that it coul;d overwhelm the NHS is a perfectly valid reason to try and keep it at bay for the moment.
But the simple fact is, *most* people should be OK, and that probably needs explaining to calm a panic. The same as *most* people are OK from flu, *most* people don't get complications from operations. The scale here *might* be more, so steps can be taken to safeguard. That doesn't mean 30yos have to buy a shop's supply of bog roll!
That doesn't mean that those under threat, or who suffer, can't be shown compassion, and steps can't be taken to help them and try and help prevent them (and us) being infected. It's not an either / or. It's not all or none.
That would have a far more potent threat for the economy and even you must see that.
I think it’s more self interest - I don’t think there would be obsessions about cancelling football matches robbing our season if it was under 40’s at risk - people won’t self isolate as they don’t think it impacts them
The impact on society's ability to function of pensioners dying is much less than that of the workforce. If that changes then the government will change tack. That doesn't mean it isn't horrible for those who have been bereaved
It’s not the government buying up paracetamol stock piling everything and flogging hand gel on e bay for £30
This latest peak has been caused by well-off people coming back from their holidays in Italy (which is why Hertfordshire and Kensington & Chelsea have the highest incidence rates - 18x a city the size of Birmingham!), and when that stops, I think/hope the rates of new cases will decline.
The unknown in all of this is just WHY Italy have been utterly incapable of controlling its spread. Anyone heard any theories on that? Free-spiritedness??
Annoying how each time somebody old dies, they seem to try and justify it by saying they had underlying health issues. Go figure! They're old. Almost all old people have underlying health issues, doesn't make then expendable
Italy have thousands of illegal Chinese migrants it’s a sub class who have been travelling freely between the two countries - oddly it’s not getting much reporting
I get what you're saying, but perhaps they need to be more explicit in their explanation. It sounds like they're saying it was expected because of underlying health issues but in reality almost every old person I know has something wrong with them.Rob, I honestly don’t think that’s the point they are making,l. More the fact that’s these health issues have, more than likely, combined with the coronavirus to cause the fatality (it might even be that their underlying health issues caused the fatality but the individual also had coronavirus). It is important that the distinction is made. It goes without saying that if there are increased fatalities of people without underlying health issues then it’s obviously a more deadly virus.
You encapsulate the entire point- why is every fucking thing about ‘the economy’? About how rich people can become? About how much peoples investments might drop? These are human beings, not economic assets, pieces of meat whose purpose is to keep the wheels turning on UK PLC, it’s people’s mums and dads, grandparents, family. So take the “economic impact” stuff and try having some humanity, some decency.That would have a far more potent threat for the economy and even you must see that.
Bravo. We all know this anyway. My investments have dropped but I couldn't give a toss right now compared with ensuring my family are going to be looked after as much as possible. It's not all about how rich people can become. Most people aren't thinking that way.You encapsulate the entire point- why is every fucking thing about ‘the economy’? About how rich people can become? About how much peoples investments might drop? These are human beings, not economic assets, pieces of meat whose purpose is to keep the wheels turning on UK PLC, it’s people’s mums and dads, grandparents, family. So take the “economic impact” stuff and try having some humanity, some decency.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?