CV19 - Cure worse than the disease?
Discussion
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.
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.
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
Esceptico said:
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.)
How will she and other young people feel if, god forbid, they catch the virus and need hospital treatment but find the beds are all filled up with oldies. This is the reality of the situation as is becoming more and more widely known. Health services overwhelmed, no free beds/ventilators, even the young can't get treatment (that would otherwise save their lives). 2-3+ week periods from entering ICU to death and in that period being on ('taking up') ventilators.
Grim picture, but people need to wake up to what the rapid spread of the virus really entails.
I believe the point being made is that is it worth ruining many millions of lives due to impacts on the world economy to stop hundreds of thousands dying earlier than they would have.
As with so many things it's not black and white and most people think about their own circumstances and how they are likely to be impacted.
As with so many things it's not black and white and most people think about their own circumstances and how they are likely to be impacted.
1: It's not just old people dying.
2: Do you extend this mindset to then withdraw medical assistance from infected people and allow survival of the fittest?
3: If you don't withdraw medical care, are you prepared to see the health care system collapse, with then major repercussions to others who may then die as a result?
4: Do you place zero economic value on the older population?
Really, its not a very well reasoned point (no disrespect), and a rather callous approach.
2: Do you extend this mindset to then withdraw medical assistance from infected people and allow survival of the fittest?
3: If you don't withdraw medical care, are you prepared to see the health care system collapse, with then major repercussions to others who may then die as a result?
4: Do you place zero economic value on the older population?
Really, its not a very well reasoned point (no disrespect), and a rather callous approach.
silvagod said:
Anyone that questions whether money should come before lives needs a serious talking to!
Yes, because we should absolutely spend infinite amounts of money on every patient. Then they will all live forever! It's so simple I don't know why we didn't think of it before! 
I'm guessing you're old and scared.
Our current approach looks to be deeply stupid. Flattening the curve won't save the NHS, and a total economic shutdown will f
k us all.silvagod said:
Anyone that questions whether money should come before lives needs a serious talking to!
Passive aggressive argument aimed at closing down discussion but not one that bears much scrutiny. Millions die each year from malnutrition or disease that could be prevented. But of course they are not in the UK. But if it is okay to let some people die just because they are not in the UK then what is the difference in discriminating by age?WinkleHoff said:
1: It's not just old people dying.
2: Do you extend this mindset to then withdraw medical assistance from infected people and allow survival of the fittest?
3: If you don't withdraw medical care, are you prepared to see the health care system collapse, with then major repercussions to others who may then die as a result?
4: Do you place zero economic value on the older population?
Really, its not a very well reasoned point (no disrespect), and a rather callous approach.
I think your approach is overall simplistic. There are no good outcomes with this virus. The question is which is the least worst in the long term. 2: Do you extend this mindset to then withdraw medical assistance from infected people and allow survival of the fittest?
3: If you don't withdraw medical care, are you prepared to see the health care system collapse, with then major repercussions to others who may then die as a result?
4: Do you place zero economic value on the older population?
Really, its not a very well reasoned point (no disrespect), and a rather callous approach.
A vaccine is perhaps 12 months away. I can’t see how shutting up shop for 12 months is realistic unless you want to see the UK looking like the Gaza strip. The healthcare system is funded by the economy. If you break the economy to save 150,000 how many will die over the years from the destruction of healthcare in the aftermath.
If someone came to you and said they could give you a ticket that would increase the likelihood of you or your family receiving decent medical assistant in the unlikelihood you become seriously ill with it. This ticket it's going to cost you your life savings, job and quite a significant drop in public services you and your family will receive in the coming years. If you don't buy the ticket it will increase the likelihood of you and your family not receiving descent treatment.
Would you buy the ticket?, I know its sound daft but that's pretty much what we are doing nationally and what will happen to lots and lots of people. It's going to be the most expensive insurance policy anyone of us will probably ever buy.
Would you buy the ticket?, I know its sound daft but that's pretty much what we are doing nationally and what will happen to lots and lots of people. It's going to be the most expensive insurance policy anyone of us will probably ever buy.
Esceptico said:
silvagod said:
Anyone that questions whether money should come before lives needs a serious talking to!
Passive aggressive argument aimed at closing down discussion but not one that bears much scrutiny. Millions die each year from malnutrition or disease that could be prevented. But of course they are not in the UK. But if it is okay to let some people die just because they are not in the UK then what is the difference in discriminating by age?Blue62 said:
Had a similar discussion with one of mine last night, she’s 19 and quite aware. Her view is that we throw the kitchen sink at this. World will change and if they get it right probably for the better, but she reckons the virus threat is the big issue for her generation and beyond.
The numbers don't look that way. 100,000 dead if we do nothing? Nasty, but only a few times what the flu does every year. The usual UK total deaths per year is 500,000. What we are doing will affect her generation and beyond.
Esceptico said:
A vaccine is perhaps 12 months away. I can’t see how shutting up shop for 12 months is realistic unless you want to see the UK looking like the Gaza strip. The healthcare system is funded by the economy. If you break the economy to save 150,000 how many will die over the years from the destruction of healthcare in the aftermath.
Exactly this. Plus the current pitch is '12 weeks to turn it around'. Great. We're all out back in whatever parts of the economy are left standing by July. And then someone with a bit of a cough gets on a flight to Heathrow from Moscow or Lagos or Tehran. And off we go again. Another 12 week lock up? And another after that ?
Do we keep doing that ? And if we do, then what's left at the end? And if we we're not prepared to repeat the lockdown cycle, then why are we doing it now?
grumbledoak said:
silvagod said:
Anyone that questions whether money should come before lives needs a serious talking to!
Yes, because we should absolutely spend infinite amounts of money on every patient. Then they will all live forever! It's so simple I don't know why we didn't think of it before! I'm guessing you're old and scared.
Our current approach looks to be deeply stupid. Flattening the curve won't save the NHS, and a total economic shutdown will f
k us all.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff