- Indefinite country specific lockdowns with affected economy, travel, etc
- Acceptance that COVID-19 is here to stay and a focus on treatment versus prevention
- A hybrid of #1 and #2, punctuated by a series of stop and start lockdowns
- ? Who knows ?
At some point, there may have to be hard choices to be made but rushing and not giving science the time to adjust, develop better treatments and possibly a vaccine is immensely selfish and immoral in my opinion.
(Note - by "balanced view" I don't mean withhold treatment or kill people off - I mean just that, a balanced view).
Robbed is an emotive (i'd say an unscientific) word, yes some people have lost their lives and more will do so, but they are victims of a natural phenomenon, as we all will be ultimately. Should we attempt to extend peoples life with treatment (this is a central point, what would anyones life expectancy be if fending alone for themselves in the wild; thus are you 'robbed' if you live to 60yrs?) and the answer (about treatment) is 'of course', but should each additional second of life won for a victim be won at any cost? And the answer is obviously 'no'. Human life may be precious to the individual, but it still has a price for and to society (and especially so this planet straining under the burden of 7.7bn and rising)> It is with events like covid that we are compelled to consider what that price might be.
So t.i.m.e. is the central concept that is under debate here in several ways:
1) Additional life expectancy as highlighted above
2) Loss of time for those who are low risk (is time spent in lockdown time well spent? Or might some consider themselves 'robbed'?)
3) Now that people are realising that covid is not going away - personally I always knew this, other coronaviruses with similar profiles follow this exact pattern - the concept of 'time' becomes far more nebulous.
4) The timescale that humans are able to impose on covid (the speed with which a vaccine can be rolled out) is paramount.
If you asked me to spend 1 week in full lockdown in order to vaccinate the entire world against Covid, the obvious answer would be 'sure', but actually that wouldn't be my response. I would expect everyone to ask, 'well how many people would have died/suffered in that one week if we didn't lock down? - If it's only 1 week, then surely the spread would be limited?
So what if it were 6 months for 100% vaccination, does the ratio of time spent to lives saved remain the same? What of the cost of 'time robbed' to those in lockdown?
So, extrapolating further, what if the exponential nature of infection means that 2 years gives the optimal ratio of time under lockdown to lives saved? Is the 17,520th hour spent in lockdown as valuable to saving lives as it is costly to those locked down or does that change in your perception?
Ultimately time is a function of quality - time amassed is never the objective in life (think prison), it's quality of life that matters. To illustrate this point further, if you could have 10 more years of life at any age, would you choose it from 25-35 or from 75-85? If you would value 75-85 less for yourself do you agree that it would also means less for others.
if you truly believe in science Aramis rather than emotional reactions, what metrics would you measure to ascertain when your time for hard choices is reached?
If the virus is here to stay, then we must find a way to live with it. The human cost of infinite lockdowns is absolutely immense. Have you looked at the effect of closing schools on poor children? The lives lost through poverty as people are unable to work? The mental health costs? The life years lost as cancer is not being treated?
For the vast majority of people this is a mild illness. We need to find a way to protect the vulnerable - the old, those with underlying health conditions, the poor etc., whilst allowing everyone else to continue with as normal a life as possible so that the human costs and life years lost due to lockdowns and business closures don't outweigh the life years saved through strict measures.
I was all for lockdowns in the early stages as an attempt to end transmission, but if it really is here to stay I see no other option than to attempt to move forward and reopen society.
I'm calling bullshit.
You just repeated her bigotry. Either measures (lockdown, social distancing, masks) work to save lives or you are discriminating against the elderly. Man up, you're just a bigot who would rather have fun than save lives of the old.
And it's not our bias of her (and yours) repeated nausea that 'old people are going to die anyway'... she even begrudges their pensions, working and "using up medical resources" FFS. Clearly her cost/benefit analysis shows we should be shipped in cattle cars to special camps along with the kids to purposely infect.
And just so you know it... everyone dies someday anyways.
Last edited by TigerSun; 27-07-2020 at 01:51 PM.
I carefully reread all the nonsense you wrote and came up with the same conclusion.
If perchance you are referencing: "It doesn't mean refuse to treat old folks" I disregarded that as an obvious strawman that none is saying.
@Aramis said: "In essence it means let the poor, the old and the sick die so that the privileged can fully enjoy their lives" and he is correct.
You know that the lockdowns affect poor people much more than rich people, right? They live in smaller accomodation; they work in riskier "essential" services rather than those than can work from home. Poor children have no laptops to do their schooling at a distance, so they will miss out and stay uneducated and poor.
The treatment is worse than the disease in many places. It's not about "rich people having fun". Its about public policy choices for society in general.
I've spent my whole career in an industry where public policy drives many decisions and have been involved in many public policy debates. Perhaps for you it's too hard to take yourself out of the equation and step back and look at the problem holistically, but for some of us, if we train for it, it's possible. Open yourself up to the possibility that I actually know more about good public policy than you do.