CV19 - Cure worse than the disease?
Discussion
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. You presumably accept expertise in areas related to motoring - engineering, chemistry, aerodynamics, robotics, logistics, design and manufacturing, and presumably also have no issue with the decades of collective expertise in fields such as physics, mathematics, materials science, encryption, telecommunications, logic, programming and suchlike that make both this site and the wider internet possible in the first place? I don't see you on any computing threads shouting at Intel for doing microprocessors wrong? What is it about the] expertise that you're happy to accept that differentiates it from epidemiology, biology, genetics, immunology, virology and economics, which you're exhorting other people to reject? Genuinely curious to see how that position is reconciled?
Sambucket said:
There is not a choice. An economy can't function without a healthcare system. So it's all moot. It's not a moral problem. It's a hierarchy of needs problem.
Correct.There is more however. If you are the PM and your faced with a question that says do I
a) Sort of follow what other countries are doing and try and get on top of the problem short term
b) Allow it to blow through and kill as much as 500k people in a year (total UK death toll from WWII was 0.94% of the population by the way).
Everyone has access to information from around the world these days. If we came out with such a death toll and other countries much less scathed what does one think would happen to the functioning state of this country, in say 6 months time when the predicted 2nd wave wouldn't have hit most other countries yet?
Remember this is after the NHS and most of the public services had already been shredded by dealing with the death toll. We haven't had a revolution in a few hundred years but then we haven't been in a situation where many millions of people would clearly blame the government for killing hundreds of thousands of Britons, most live on TV day in day out 24/7, and at the same time presided over the collapse of the state.
That most don't understand such realpolitik shouldn't be as shocking as it is but there you are. First rule of all governments is to protect the survival of the state in a functioning form.
We are going to be paying for this for decades but there really is no sane alternative.
It has been posited in some quarters that the developed world has essentially stopped the evolution of the human race by its ability to prolong life and support those with long-term illnesses.
There is a rational argument for what is reported now to be the Italian approach - assistance only to those with a lot of living left to do.
That’s not to say I support a deliberate policy of allowing the infirm to die. But given the stats suggesting the majority who have died had one or more serious underlying condition (conditions likely to kill them comparatively quickly), in a resource-constrained environment that Italian approach is rational.
The NHS was broadly set up to allow people to keep working and contributing to society. Over time, with relatively little discussion, it has (with the benefit of medical advances) moves further and further from that aim. In fact, such is the pressure upon it that working-age people suffering from “fixable” problems are waiting months or years for assistance whilst being unable to work.
In a schools debating contest nearly 40 years ago, I asked “are people living too long” and conjured up the image of “superannuated hordes sweeping over the landscape.” This isn’t a new discussion.
As a nation we’ve chosen to be defined by our NHS; just look, say, at the Olympics’ opening ceremony. But we have seldom questioned its purpose nor properly discussed its funding.
It is not IMHO somehow morally wrong for people to question the response. Just as they opposed Brexit, they may oppose artificial prolongation of life. In a democracy their views have at least an equal right to be heard; if you think they should not, why does an equal right extend to an 80 year old with multiple historically fatal diseases have to a view?
Our society has never had a policy of unlimited support for all members of it. Every year people die of cold, of homelessness, of untreated and wholly avoidable mental health issues, of poverty. Why is now any different?
The cynic might say that more geriatrics vote Tory of course
The debate must be had. The current economic destruction will ironically have least effect upon those who have lived long and prospered, who have paid off their mortgages and hold significant assets. Not for the first time, the poorer working young will have to shoulder the financial burden of protecting those with assets. Medical prolongation has, amongst other effects, driven up house prices and delayed the usual flow of assets via inheritance.
I don’t, so we’re clear, advocate simply pulling away the safety net, but I do think this debate is a reasonable one, and that no one viewpoint has a divine benefit of being “right.”
There is a rational argument for what is reported now to be the Italian approach - assistance only to those with a lot of living left to do.
That’s not to say I support a deliberate policy of allowing the infirm to die. But given the stats suggesting the majority who have died had one or more serious underlying condition (conditions likely to kill them comparatively quickly), in a resource-constrained environment that Italian approach is rational.
The NHS was broadly set up to allow people to keep working and contributing to society. Over time, with relatively little discussion, it has (with the benefit of medical advances) moves further and further from that aim. In fact, such is the pressure upon it that working-age people suffering from “fixable” problems are waiting months or years for assistance whilst being unable to work.
In a schools debating contest nearly 40 years ago, I asked “are people living too long” and conjured up the image of “superannuated hordes sweeping over the landscape.” This isn’t a new discussion.
As a nation we’ve chosen to be defined by our NHS; just look, say, at the Olympics’ opening ceremony. But we have seldom questioned its purpose nor properly discussed its funding.
It is not IMHO somehow morally wrong for people to question the response. Just as they opposed Brexit, they may oppose artificial prolongation of life. In a democracy their views have at least an equal right to be heard; if you think they should not, why does an equal right extend to an 80 year old with multiple historically fatal diseases have to a view?
Our society has never had a policy of unlimited support for all members of it. Every year people die of cold, of homelessness, of untreated and wholly avoidable mental health issues, of poverty. Why is now any different?
The cynic might say that more geriatrics vote Tory of course
The debate must be had. The current economic destruction will ironically have least effect upon those who have lived long and prospered, who have paid off their mortgages and hold significant assets. Not for the first time, the poorer working young will have to shoulder the financial burden of protecting those with assets. Medical prolongation has, amongst other effects, driven up house prices and delayed the usual flow of assets via inheritance.
I don’t, so we’re clear, advocate simply pulling away the safety net, but I do think this debate is a reasonable one, and that no one viewpoint has a divine benefit of being “right.”
NRS said:
Do you have savings? If so why have you not put them into saving people's lives? It's basically the same question you're putting to the country instead
Unfortunately no I don’t. I’m a self employed tradesman who’s van was recently broken into and had thousands of pounds worth of tools stolen. All the savings I had were put into purchasing new tools that I’m currently not really using due to the downturn in work. But hey, I can apply for universal credit. £300 a month covers the bills right? If the government wants to take taxes in the good times it must be prepared to give back and support in the bad times. Them’s the rules. Otherwise it’s every man for himself. And nobody wants that.NRS said:
It's harsh, and some will say the life is more important.
Life is more important than anything. Because if you’re not alive... your dead. And when your dead, nothing is important.jakesmith said:
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
I'd ask her how she would feel if she was 70 and her children had just had their first babies.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
Let's be blunt - the NHS was on its knees before all this due to the lingering old corpses clinging on in hospital beds or taking up all the social reserves.
They have had a good innings and a great reduction in all the numbers wouldn't go amiss
Id also say that going forward free NHS treatment should end after 80.
Everyone seems to assume that saving lives and saving the economy have two different strategies. They really don't.
The incubation period is about 4 days. Let' say two weeks to be super safe. Starting monday week, shut down for two weeks, only hospitals and ration card supermarkets.
If we did that it would be gone. Mininum loss of life, minimum impact.
Unfortunately, so many people would rather party the two weeks, with no comprehension of the pain that would follow.
The incubation period is about 4 days. Let' say two weeks to be super safe. Starting monday week, shut down for two weeks, only hospitals and ration card supermarkets.
If we did that it would be gone. Mininum loss of life, minimum impact.
Unfortunately, so many people would rather party the two weeks, with no comprehension of the pain that would follow.
otherman said:
Everyone seems to assume that saving lives and saving the economy have two different strategies. They really don't.
The incubation period is about 4 days. Let' say two weeks to be super safe. Starting monday week, shut down for two weeks, only hospitals and ration card supermarkets.
If we did that it would be gone. Mininum loss of life, minimum impact.
Unfortunately, so many people would rather party the two weeks, with no comprehension of the pain that would follow.
You would also need to keep the borders shut indefinitely to stop it being brought back in, killing the tourist industry dead. Even if you banned people from coming over you’d have to ban freight too, since drivers etc would be a transmission vector too.The incubation period is about 4 days. Let' say two weeks to be super safe. Starting monday week, shut down for two weeks, only hospitals and ration card supermarkets.
If we did that it would be gone. Mininum loss of life, minimum impact.
Unfortunately, so many people would rather party the two weeks, with no comprehension of the pain that would follow.
ash73 said:
Personally I think we're being irrational, influenza kills about the same number, but people are becoming increasingly hysterical because of the media and live data.
I've stopped watching it on the news, and feel better for it. I just keep up to date on what the latest guidance is.
Seasonal influenza doesn’t infect the whole country though. It is infectious up to a day before symptoms appear. There are vaccines that are effective against it.I've stopped watching it on the news, and feel better for it. I just keep up to date on what the latest guidance is.
This thing is highly infectious throughout the incubation period, which has a median of 5 days but can be up to 2 weeks. It is transmitted through breath - not just coughs or sneezes. It survives on surfaces for several hours. There is no vaccine or cure. It has a mortality rate of around 10-15x of seasonal flu.
People who compare it against flu and say “we don’t go mad over that” completely neglect the fact that influenza is manageable. Yes, people die every year from it, but the general population is safe.
This thing has the potential to infect the whole country if left unchecked, and would kill millions of people in the process both from the actual disease and the collapse of the health service.
silvagod said:
Anyone that questions whether money should come before lives needs a serious talking to!
How do you think the NHS decides how much money to spend on drugs?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_f...
PorkInsider said:
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.
I keep seeing this posted. Please explain how people going out and socialising will extend the time the measures are in place?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.I can only assume it's a complete misunderstanding of what the social distancing is for and what "flattening the curve" means.
If everyone went out and got it tomorrow then this whole thing would be over within a month, with alot of deaths. The plan is to have a slow rate of infection over the next 3-6 months so the NHS can cope.
Edited by Zoobeef on Sunday 22 March 03:56
ash73 said:
I'm not suggesting we should not stop this spreading, but there are alternative means:
(a) everyone except hospitals, emergency services and utilities maintenance stays home for 3 weeks, job done.
(b) distance the vulnerables, everyone else carries on as normal (low CFR, for them)
Neither may be feasible because idiots, but they wouldn't wreck the economy as we are doing.
We'll have a vaccine in 12 months, maybe less, so it will be manageable.
The problem is you can do all of that then someone comes from another country and ti all starts again.(a) everyone except hospitals, emergency services and utilities maintenance stays home for 3 weeks, job done.
(b) distance the vulnerables, everyone else carries on as normal (low CFR, for them)
Neither may be feasible because idiots, but they wouldn't wreck the economy as we are doing.
We'll have a vaccine in 12 months, maybe less, so it will be manageable.
silvagod said:
Anyone that questions whether money should come before lives needs a serious talking to!
By that definition the NHS should have all the money it requires to keep people alive for as long a possible.Death is a fundamental fact of live. Life is finite. The economy isn't.
There is, and always must be, an economic balance in healthcare and keeping people alive. We need people to die to make space for those being born.
It is fair to lay billions, maybe even trillions, of debt at the door of your children, grandchildren, even great grandchildren to keep current pensioners alive that wont be around to have to pay for it themselves?
At the moment the stance is that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, but that cannot continue for ever. The world cannot be bankrupted to save a relatively small number of OAP's.
I would remind you that 575,000 people died worldwide of the swine flu in 2009. Where was the economic shutdown to prevent that? The only difference was that it was 'flu' rather than 'virus'. 15,000 - 25,000 people in the UK die of 'flu' every year, mostly OAP's.
Edited by Stay in Bed Instead on Sunday 22 March 03:47
Gromm said:
By that logic, we can save huge amounts of money by withholding some expensive and long term forms of treatment from children and young adults and offer further education only to gifted children above certain IQ where the rest would be required to do unskilled work for the rest of their lives.
But what I would personally say to her, is that unless you bring something to the table you do not have a say in it. Simple. But that’s just me.
We already refuse to purchase expensive life saving drugs, didn't you know?But what I would personally say to her, is that unless you bring something to the table you do not have a say in it. Simple. But that’s just me.
Stay in Bed Instead said:
Gromm said:
By that logic, we can save huge amounts of money by withholding some expensive and long term forms of treatment from children and young adults and offer further education only to gifted children above certain IQ where the rest would be required to do unskilled work for the rest of their lives.
But what I would personally say to her, is that unless you bring something to the table you do not have a say in it. Simple. But that’s just me.
We already refuse to purchase expensive life saving drugs, didn't you know?But what I would personally say to her, is that unless you bring something to the table you do not have a say in it. Simple. But that’s just me.
Gromm said:
Acutely aware, numbers and consequences are hardly comparable aren’t they.
Sorry, I am unsure what you are stating.It's about balance of the needs of the health service and the ability of the economy to pay for it. If the economy is trashed for a generation or more the health service and future generations will suffer the consequences.
Gromm said:
By that logic, we can save huge amounts of money by withholding some expensive and long term forms of treatment from children and young adults and offer further education only to gifted children above certain IQ where the rest would be required to do unskilled work for the rest of their lives.
But what I would personally say to her, is that unless you bring something to the table you do not have a say in it. Simple. But that’s just me.
Define “a say”?But what I would personally say to her, is that unless you bring something to the table you do not have a say in it. Simple. But that’s just me.
skwdenyer said:
Gromm said:
By that logic, we can save huge amounts of money by withholding some expensive and long term forms of treatment from children and young adults and offer further education only to gifted children above certain IQ where the rest would be required to do unskilled work for the rest of their lives.
But what I would personally say to her, is that unless you bring something to the table you do not have a say in it. Simple. But that’s just me.
Define “a say”?But what I would personally say to her, is that unless you bring something to the table you do not have a say in it. Simple. But that’s just me.
Lentilist said:
Was that what you were doing when you started your misfire thread? You were unable to diagnose a problem, so you sought counsel from others who had presumably used their brains more than you in that specific area. I don't see any rejection of expertise in that discussion?
You presumably accept expertise in areas related to motoring - engineering, chemistry, aerodynamics, robotics, logistics, design and manufacturing, and presumably also have no issue with the decades of collective expertise in fields such as physics, mathematics, materials science, encryption, telecommunications, logic, programming and suchlike that make both this site and the wider internet possible in the first place? I don't see you on any computing threads shouting at Intel for doing microprocessors wrong? What is it about the] expertise that you're happy to accept that differentiates it from epidemiology, biology, genetics, immunology, virology and economics, which you're exhorting other people to reject? Genuinely curious to see how that position is reconciled?
Of course I'm open to advice from people with more knowledge and experience than myself. The using your brain part applies to applying that advice.You presumably accept expertise in areas related to motoring - engineering, chemistry, aerodynamics, robotics, logistics, design and manufacturing, and presumably also have no issue with the decades of collective expertise in fields such as physics, mathematics, materials science, encryption, telecommunications, logic, programming and suchlike that make both this site and the wider internet possible in the first place? I don't see you on any computing threads shouting at Intel for doing microprocessors wrong? What is it about the] expertise that you're happy to accept that differentiates it from epidemiology, biology, genetics, immunology, virology and economics, which you're exhorting other people to reject? Genuinely curious to see how that position is reconciled?
To go with the misfire thread analogy, it seems as if someone had told me that the safest way was a complete engine rebuild, someone else had told me that the car would never be worth the repair, and someone else that I should take the opportunity to bolt on twin turbos etc etc.
Those people may all be technically brilliant and may be sincerely offering the best advice they can. It doesn't mean they should be blindly followed.
There are no experts on the implications of such policies nor on the perils of this disease because it hasn't happened like this before.
With the time frame and the spread of the illness it's quite unlikely that those with a good idea of these things have accurate information or have had the time to fully digest and model the impacts of various courses of action.
In such circumstances I am quite capable of looking at the numbers I posted above and saying that I believe the reaction will be more damaging than the virus itself.
lord trumpton said:
jakesmith said:
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
I'd ask her how she would feel if she was 70 and her children had just had their first babies.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
Let's be blunt - the NHS was on its knees before all this due to the lingering old corpses clinging on in hospital beds or taking up all the social reserves.
They have had a good innings and a great reduction in all the numbers wouldn't go amiss
Id also say that going forward free NHS treatment should end after 80.
k me, what a charmer you are. Of course, you've got all the facts to hand.
Edit: unless this is satire, in which case, f
k you. Edited by Smiler. on Sunday 22 March 07:57
lord trumpton said:
jakesmith said:
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
I'd ask her how she would feel if she was 70 and her children had just had their first babies.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
Let's be blunt - the NHS was on its knees before all this due to the lingering old corpses clinging on in hospital beds or taking up all the social reserves.
They have had a good innings and a great reduction in all the numbers wouldn't go amiss
Id also say that going forward free NHS treatment should end after 80.
- BoomerRemover
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff