There also should be more self-determination for the said people.
The problem with self determination is that you need to be in possession of your faculties in order to express your wishes. Which leaves us with the options of making decisions for people who are no longer able to express their wishes, or having very long discussions in advance. That’s something that can be done for diseases that creep up on people, but is harder for things like severe strokes that strike suddenly.
Of the COVID cases I know of locally, a few were already on palliative pathways with a very short life expectancy but others are people who had a good quality of life and might well have had a decade or two of active life caring for grandchildren etc. They are worth fighting for, and for what it’s worth I support most aspects of the current lockdown.
My point is that we are always striking to reach some kind of balance. Resources aren’t unlimited. Healthcare, particularly for acute conditions, has an unhealthy way of focusing the mind – it is easy to argue for treatment costing £1000 for a heart attack, but seemingly harder to argue for subsidising healthy school dinners which might be a much more cost effective way of preventing heart attacks in the long run.
There will be less tangible health and economic costs to the current lockdown and it’s not wrong to consider that these should be weighed against the benefit to those saved by it. As we learn more about the disease we will be able (hopefully) to make sensible compromises.
kwlf wrote:
There will be less tangible health and economic costs to the current lockdown and it’s not wrong to consider that these should be weighed against the benefit to those saved by it. As we learn more about the disease we will be able (hopefully) to make sensible compromises.
Absolutely.
It is crazy. We were fearing overflow as in italy for a while and now that thanks to measures imposed it did not happen, you got plenty of smart Aleks who criticize that the measures were over the top because hospitals are NOT running over capacity. As i said, in this crisis you learn what people you deal with. My friends list will change quite a bit after this I think.
dublinpilot wrote:
But if we stop it now then that’s the end of the economic cost.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
If we stop now then the virus will spread exponentially and deaths will rise to levels seen in those places who did not react on time and beyond that.
Sorry I wasn’t clearer. What I meant that that “if we stop [the virus] now then that’s the end of the economic cost.”
In other words the economic damage stops when we stop the virus. If we run a strategy of minimising the restrictions and allowing a certain level of virus to persist then the economic damage continues because too many people won’t participate fully in the economy.
In many ways, both the economy and the public health is best served by a strategy that seeks to eliminate the virus rather than simply to control it.
dublinpilot wrote:
In many ways, both the economy and the public health is best served by a strategy that seeks to eliminate the virus rather than simply to control it.
I am not sure I agree. Public health professionals seem to agree that we can’t eliminate the virus. The goal of the lockdown measures is to prevent health systems from being overwhelmed. Once that can be assured, the economy has to be opened up.
The lockdowns seem to have worked. And criticism saying they were over the top is easy in hindsight. Who knows what would have happened if they weren’t brought in. A sober reflection will take place when this is all over but for now I think there is too much criticism of governments across Europe. Overall, I think they have reacted well. Lessons will be learned but for now let’s not succumb to the politics of second guessing an unprecedented global crisis.
gallois wrote:
(the very people that you think can now be sacrificed for the economy)
Sorry Gallois this is just a nonsense personal attack on me. I’ve not said nor think that these people can be sacrificed for the economy, I’m just saying we need to think about what’s going on and what the best most sensible measures are to manage as best we can. There will be people who lose lives because of the lockdown. Small business owners will be facing some pretty brutal times and I wouldn’t be surprised if the suicide rate went up.
I’ve a family friend who lost her husband to natural causes before this outbreak kicked off(outside of communist china), she had a minor heart attack following and is now stuck in a house by herself, She was busy with a number of charity groups etc, but now is stuck inside. I’d love to go round to make sure she’s OK but can’t. I’m worried for her.
I thought one of the previous suggestions of a staged form of getting people out, using masks, distancing, etc seems reasonable.
I’d love to go round to make sure she’s OK but can’t. I’m worried for her.
You can go there. Looking after “vulnerable people” etc is on the explicit list (which is not exhaustive anyway).
If she has visiting carers then you must assume she is infected, so wear a mask, gloves and protective glasses 
My GF and I did exactly this last night. Peel off the gloves before getting into the car, etc.
Nowadays, everybody is a “vulnerable person” anyway 
If the police stopped you, just mention this and you won’t see them for dust.
Thanks for that information Peter. She doesn’t have carers coming in as far as I understand, I’ll see if she would like a suitably socially distanced visit.
alioth wrote:
Worrying about these edge cases is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Since most of the people who die with Covid-19 have multiple diseases, I don’t think these are edge cases.
Re ‘“vulnerable people” and specific government issued direction how we may see them, I’d offer the following: My parents who are about 90 years old plus or minus a couple are driving 20 miles to join my wife and I for Easter dinner. Oddly enough after that much life experience they are happy to make their own risk/benefit assessment, based on a lot of experience in doing so and an understanding of what they have to lose. Their choice is doubtless influenced by the relatively low rate of infection of our area of the US, filled with people making similar judgements in their own lives, apparently effectively so.
Of course my dad is the same guy who when stopped by the police riding his bicycle on his daily 15 mile (each way) commute at age 60, told the officer that no he didn’t have a drivers license or other ID and to buzz off. Believe it or not the policeman did just that.
I too have parents in their 90’s one living alone and one in a care home. I cannot visit either for various reasons. I also have an uncle in his mimd 80’s who has just been diagnosed with lung cancer.He needs to travel 60 miles each way, everyday for chemotherapy. He lives in a annexe of his son’s house and his son has offered to drive him to and from the hospital each day. But he has refused the treatment because the hospital has already had deaths from the virus and he is afraid that he might get the virus and pass it on to his son, daughter in law and two small children.
As he says, he is 85 and has had a good life so why take the risk. I respect his decision, but it is his decision.and he puts only himself at risk A doctor has not been forced to make that decision for him on economic grounds, I’m sorry @Off_Field if you thought I was making a personal attack on you when in fact I was making a personal attack on anyone who believes in " acceptable kill factors" based on whether or not it costs more than a couple of thousand quid to save them.
Would you say the same if you crashed your plane on a mountain and a search and rescue team risked their lives and cost a great deal of money to save you?
