Starker on 22/7/2020 at 03:38
What a capital idea, Missouri:
Pyrian on 22/7/2020 at 04:25
Quote Posted by SD
If being opposed to wrecking your economy to delay the inevitable and give granny six more months in a care home is twittery.
That's worse than mere twittery. You spare the economy by locking down hard enough to defeat the virus. Anything else... Just means worse consequences for the economy. This isn't an either-or scenario, this isn't a tradeoff scenario. Fighting the virus isn't what wrecks the economy, it's
failing to fight the virus that wrecks the economy.
Starker on 22/7/2020 at 07:58
I have so many people in my life that are in the risk group -- relatives, friends, colleagues, mentors... losing even one of them to this disease would be a tragedy.
The people who want grandma to go gentle into that good night for the sake of the economy never seem to realise that not everyone considers older people useless and expendable.
Judith on 22/7/2020 at 08:25
Yeah, and don't we have Sweden as an example that cancelling or not having the lockdown doesn't do much for economy anyway? There was no lockdown there and people did the social distancing themselves. It still hit the economy, because, among other things, during times like these people tend to save money / are more careful with their spendings.
nickie on 22/7/2020 at 09:37
Quote Posted by Starker
The people who want grandma to go gentle into that good night for the sake of the economy never seem to realise that not everyone considers older people useless and expendable.
Quite. I'm a grandmother and I also care for 3 people all at high risk, as am I (probably). My mother was 93 when she died and up until the last 6 months, she was still doing political campaigning, charity and church work and was reading to the children in the local school every week. She wasn't considered useless and expendable.
My county did very well by shutting down the holiday homes, caravan parks and universities and carrying out vigorous tracing and testing and they started quite early. Our case count was 59 with 7 deaths, the lowest in the UK apart from the Scilly Isles. It also helps to be rural. But we opened up to England last week and my nearest seaside town was packed on Saturday. Few masks and no distancing. I'm pissed off to say the least.
Nicker on 22/7/2020 at 10:04
Quote Posted by SD
If being opposed to wrecking your economy to delay the inevitable and give granny six more months in a care home is twittery.
That was cold. Not harsh reality cold, sociopath cold. Not smart cold but totally ignoring the facts and twisting those you can't ignore, cold.
howeird on 22/7/2020 at 10:12
Mom and her friends are convinced Donald is trying to kill them to get their social security money. Adding to that... they don't have jobs so they don't contribute to his economy. Killing three birds with one corona virus every death leads to creating one new job for the job counter. :erm:
SD on 22/7/2020 at 21:08
Quote Posted by Nicker
That was cold. Not harsh reality cold, sociopath cold. Not smart cold but totally ignoring the facts and twisting those you can't ignore, cold.
It's not though, is it. There is nothing cold or sociopathic about stating that old people are going to die. That is biological reality.
I repeat, deaths from all causes in the UK now are below average, and have been for a month. Because most of the people killed off by the virus are really old or really sick and were going to die within the next 18 months anyway, regardless of whether they caught covid or not.
I was just reading today that the average age of virus deaths in Scotland is 81 for men and 85 for women. Both of these are above the average life expectancy there. The virus is killing off people who have run their race already.
It doesn't make their deaths any less sad for the people who love them. You are mistaking the acknowledgement of inevitability for a value judgment.
If you are under 50 the risk from coronavirus is negligible. Even in you are in the 50-64 age range and you catch the virus - highly unlikely here in the first instance, given only 0.02% of the population currently have it - your risk of death is only 0.14%.
We are not living in 28 Days Later.
Nicker on 22/7/2020 at 21:59
Quote:
It's not though, is it. There is nothing cold or sociopathic about stating that old people are going to die. That is biological reality.
You are going to die. Are you willing to die for the economy? Saying they should die sooner to support the economy is sociopathic or at the very least, fucked up.
Quote:
It doesn't make their deaths any less sad for the people who love them. You are mistaking the acknowledgement of inevitability for a value judgment.
But you didn't just acknowledge a sad inevitability, you valued the economy over the lives of the elderly. Feel free to withdraw, amend or explain your previous statements.
Quote:
If you are under 50 the risk from coronavirus is negligible.
That's a bold and vague assertion. Negligible in what sense? The risk for catching it, dying from it, transmitting it, being an asymptomatic carrier, suffering life altering effects from it or just killing some random granny because... economy?
Quote:
We are not living in 28 Days Later.
Straw man much?
Now certain people are crowing that the lack of dead bodies piled in the streets is proof that the virus is not a threat, rather than acknowledging that the reason we don't have bodies piled in the streets is because we took precautions. Or are you going to assert that refer trucks, full of corpses, parked outside hospitals, is economy as usual?
SubJeff on 22/7/2020 at 22:44
You're just wrong SD.