CV19 - Cure worse than the disease?
Discussion
Again, it's not just the old that are affected, it's also anyone with pre-existing medical conditions.
500k death is an estimate but it could be far worse if left unchecked. We have no cure or no vaccine so it is extremely risky and foolish to allow the virus to profilerate uncontrollaby.
Point is to control the rate of infection and deaths whilst buying us more time for a cure and vaccine.
Sure, I can see how some people would want to have business as usual. However with high percentage of the population either sick or dead the economy will worse off, perhaps even to the point where it's unrecoverable.
I can't really understand how at this stage someone could justify the thought of doing nothing at all.
If you think that will help the economy you are wrong. If UK does nothing and allow the virus to spread freely the rest of the world will cut us off.
500k death is an estimate but it could be far worse if left unchecked. We have no cure or no vaccine so it is extremely risky and foolish to allow the virus to profilerate uncontrollaby.
Point is to control the rate of infection and deaths whilst buying us more time for a cure and vaccine.
Sure, I can see how some people would want to have business as usual. However with high percentage of the population either sick or dead the economy will worse off, perhaps even to the point where it's unrecoverable.
I can't really understand how at this stage someone could justify the thought of doing nothing at all.
If you think that will help the economy you are wrong. If UK does nothing and allow the virus to spread freely the rest of the world will cut us off.
Edited by anxious_ant on Saturday 21st March 21:55
Newc said:
knitware said:
So to the original question. It is important to throw funds at this as the normal annual 500k, predicted, folk who would die over the year will perish within weeks, this would ultimately increase the death rate of the UK due to overwhelming the NHS, young, will die due to no space in the wards, ICU etc.
Do you believe that the long term impact on society of that short term bulge in the death rate would be worse or better than shutting down the global economy for at least three months? The OP might tell his daughter that; if, indeed, the tale is true and he didn’t just make it up to be controversial.
Esceptico said:
Over dinner last night I was discussing CV19 with wife and teenage daughter.
Daughter’s assessment was very pragmatic but also focused on her and her peers. She questioned whether the damage being done to the global economy and the potential for a long recession or even depression like the 1930s was a price worth paying to defer the death of lots of old people with existing health problems (yes the virus doesn’t just kill old people but the mortality rates increase dramatically with age from 0.006% of 10-20 year olds to almost 10% of those over 80.)
Of course, the depression in the 30s was directly or indirectly linked to one of the worst periods in human history and many dead through war, genocide and political repression. If the economic chaos leads to anything similar the numbers killed could dwarf the potential deaths from CV19, the difference being that wars are much less discriminatory and tend to kill all and sundry (particularly young men of combat age).
In 5 or 10 years will we look back and agree with what is being done by governments globally (when a good chunk of those who would die now if the virus were allowed to spread quickly will be dead in any case from other causes) or will those still alive rue the decisions currently being made?
I’m not making predictions or giving an opinion. I just wasn’t sure how to answer her.
I've no idea how old you or your wife are, but had you been the age that your daughter had in mind (80ish?) and with the type of health conditions that this virus would seriously hamper any recovery from and hasten death, do you think the conversation would have taken place? Daughter’s assessment was very pragmatic but also focused on her and her peers. She questioned whether the damage being done to the global economy and the potential for a long recession or even depression like the 1930s was a price worth paying to defer the death of lots of old people with existing health problems (yes the virus doesn’t just kill old people but the mortality rates increase dramatically with age from 0.006% of 10-20 year olds to almost 10% of those over 80.)
Of course, the depression in the 30s was directly or indirectly linked to one of the worst periods in human history and many dead through war, genocide and political repression. If the economic chaos leads to anything similar the numbers killed could dwarf the potential deaths from CV19, the difference being that wars are much less discriminatory and tend to kill all and sundry (particularly young men of combat age).
In 5 or 10 years will we look back and agree with what is being done by governments globally (when a good chunk of those who would die now if the virus were allowed to spread quickly will be dead in any case from other causes) or will those still alive rue the decisions currently being made?
I’m not making predictions or giving an opinion. I just wasn’t sure how to answer her.
If it did how then would you have answered?
Do you or your wife have living parents?
If so did your daughter discuss her thoughts with you regards her grandparents?
Pothole said:
Nope, not my job. I'm believing the experts, the ones I have to believe are experts, as there is no real alternative.
There is the alternative of using your own brain. Again I'm not saying definitively that it's a harmless cold, but just how bad is it? And what price exactly is too high to stop it?
It's all well and good to say in a panic that this is a fatal disease and nothing is more important than saving lives but it isn't an answer.
Would you shoot anyone with symptoms? Nuke any city with an outbreak?
Of course not.
At some point the cure is worse than the disease and I don't believe any one expert has all the answers.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Pothole said:
Nope, not my job. I'm believing the experts, the ones I have to believe are experts, as there is no real alternative.
There is the alternative of using your own brain. Again I'm not saying definitively that it's a harmless cold, but just how bad is it? And what price exactly is too high to stop it?
It's all well and good to say in a panic that this is a fatal disease and nothing is more important than saving lives but it isn't an answer.
Would you shoot anyone with symptoms? Nuke any city with an outbreak?
Of course not.
At some point the cure is worse than the disease and I don't believe any one expert has all the answers.
Only on PH would you have people earnestly supporting essentially forced euthanasia by proxy.
Better hope that when all the beds and ventilators are taken up by the masses of infected young(er) and old that no one else of any age has any kind of accident, stroke, or anything else that requires a hospital bed, or a spell in ICU.
Anyone seriously advocating “letting the elderly die so I don’t have money worries” has no soul.
Better hope that when all the beds and ventilators are taken up by the masses of infected young(er) and old that no one else of any age has any kind of accident, stroke, or anything else that requires a hospital bed, or a spell in ICU.
Anyone seriously advocating “letting the elderly die so I don’t have money worries” has no soul.
Durzel said:
Anyone seriously advocating “letting the elderly die so I don’t have money worries” has no soul.
It’s far more than simple money worries. It’s the troublesome notion that millions of normal, healthy, productive lives and a national economy could be affected for many years from this attempt to postpone the inevitable deaths of the elderly and infirm. Is that truly worth it? As I said before, there’s a cost benefit analysis to everything.
This is absolutely not aimed at OP's daughter, but what I've seen recently is young people - teens/20s - very keen to tell the older generations how they've ruined the environment and stolen their futures.
And then, in the face of this pandemic, they carry on as normal, socialising and visiting gyms/bars with no f
ks given, knowing that their behaviour will directly impact older people, and that same behaviour will extend the time these measures are in force and hence the economic damage.
And then, in the face of this pandemic, they carry on as normal, socialising and visiting gyms/bars with no f
ks given, knowing that their behaviour will directly impact older people, and that same behaviour will extend the time these measures are in force and hence the economic damage.Tebbers said:
It’s far more than simple money worries. It’s the troublesome notion that millions of normal, healthy, productive lives and a national economy could be affected for many years from this attempt to postpone the inevitable deaths of the elderly and infirm. Is that truly worth it? As I said before, there’s a cost benefit analysis to everything.
I suspect it’s a different when your face to face with someone and you have to tell them that you’ve decided to let their parents and/or grandparents die.
We don’t know the economic fallout and how long any recession would last, but we do know the direct effects from advocating “getting it over and done with, survival of the fittest”.
It’s also not just the elderly and infirm, that’s a convenient argument. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest they aren’t the only ones affected, Italy’s stats are that 50% of the people hospitalised are under 50.
Then there is the effect of no beds, staff, ICU equipment. I suspect you might reconsider your purely financial argument if you had a perfectly healthy child who happened to have an accident necessitating ICU or a ventilator.
don'tbesilly said:
I've no idea how old you or your wife are, but had you been the age that your daughter had in mind (80ish?) and with the type of health conditions that this virus would seriously hamper any recovery from and hasten death, do you think the conversation would have taken place?
If it did how then would you have answered?
Do you or your wife have living parents?
If so did your daughter discuss her thoughts with you regards her grandparents?
She does have one surviving grandparent and they are close but my daughter’s view was that her grandmother had pretty much lived her life (children, two husbands, numerous lovers, lived and travelled all over the world) but my daughter had not yet experienced anything and she felt she deserved a chance. To be fair although I haven’t asked my mother I expect she would not want her granddaughter’s future compromised for her sake. She encouraged us to move to NZ because she thought it would be good for my daughter even though it meant we would hardly see her again. If it did how then would you have answered?
Do you or your wife have living parents?
If so did your daughter discuss her thoughts with you regards her grandparents?
Would you want to live in a world that had made this decision? I’m not sure I could live with it.
It would be a pretty dark day for humanity. It speaks volumes that no country has gone to this extreme, even autocratic ones. Triage is one thing, involuntary euthanasia by proxy is quite another.
It would be a pretty dark day for humanity. It speaks volumes that no country has gone to this extreme, even autocratic ones. Triage is one thing, involuntary euthanasia by proxy is quite another.
scottydoesntknow said:
silvagod said:
Anyone that questions whether money should come before lives needs a serious talking to!
Agreed.It's harsh, and some will say the life is more important. But if they keep savings for themselves they are putting their own economic situation over saving lives, and so are not following what they say in practice - they apply their own "reasonable" limits.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff