-
@ffm and your posts all seem to miss the fact that quite a number of the deaths are not of very old people, or people with significant underlying health conditions.
We're learning about this all the time, and of course deaths aren't limited to the over-70s, but my impression is that the vast majority of deaths still fall in that demographic.
You happy to open things up so all these people are at significantly increased risk of getting it?
Of course I'm not happy. Nobody is happy in this situation, because all the decisions in this situation are shit, but that doesn't mean that we should always default to minimising the short-term pain, without considering the long-term implications. It's not less valid to ask whether you're happy to damage the long-term wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of children. We've entered lockdown and it feels like people expect that there will be some sort of eureka moment when somehow this all gets sorted and we can go back to life as normal; however, while we're waiting for that to happen we may quietly pass the point where the negative effects of the lockdown surpass the positives.
Also, letting it sweep though the population will overwhelm the hospitals - you content for all the doctors, nurses, paramedics and care home workers to deal with that?
This is also important. In addition, the problem of the NHS not being able to treat non-Covid patients has to be factored in.
ffm-
Yeah, "happy" was the wrong term - shouldn't have thrown that in.
I just think it is significantly more complicated than those posts make out - like the negative aspects of lock down will be mitigated by somehow lifting it.
Imagine the negative impact on mental health if, post lockdown, you end up infecting a relative or family friend and they die.
This virus is pretty awful, so there is no alternative simple world where we open things up, go back to relative normality and only some old people die. I think it is a lot more complicated than that.
-
damage the long-term wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of children.
Missing a couple of weeks of school is going to have fuck all effect on even 1 kid.
Even assuming this term is completely out and they manage to not do anything at home it will have minimal impact. Those due GCSE/A levels aren't having them. Those not taking significant exams miss 10 weeks or so of their school career. Big deal. They've probably kicked off their tiktok career in the meantime.
Scrabble
villa-ru
@ffm and your posts all seem to miss the fact that quite a number of the deaths are not of very old people, or people with significant underlying health conditions.
A big risk area is men over 60. They may be slightly overweight, a bit out of shape and perhaps are or were smokers, but they could well die from this disease, or have it so bad that they never recover similar lung function. They could previously have happily lived another 20 years. You happy to open things up so all these people are at significantly increased risk of getting it? Plenty younger than 60 have also died, many with no significant health conditions (i.e. about to die anyway).
Also, letting it sweep though the population will overwhelm the hospitals - you content for all the doctors, nurses, paramedics and care home workers to deal with that?
I don't think it's as clear cut as you think it is in terms of who is dying from this disease.