6 ms·

On the other hand, if it works the payoff will be quite significant in terms of impact to the economy compared to the rest of the world.

by Aqua 7y ago

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
If condemning 2-5% of your elderly population to death with a shrug is seen as shrewd economic policy, I’m moving to Mars. Fuck this place.
- glofish 7y ago
  It has always been like that, only usually it is not this obvious. All advanced societies are built on the exploitation of someone else, you just did not get to see who those people were. Note: I am not endorsing the choice - just observing.
- CPLX 7y ago
  You’re going to be really upset then when you find out what happens to the elderly if you just wait a few years. This stuff always involves complicated choices. For example, would you advocate a policy of taxing all restaurant owners at a 90% marginal rate forcing most into bankruptcy to pay for a very expensive new medical treatment that only works on the elderly and extends their life just a few years? If you proposed that do you think it would be unanimous or controversial?
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    Describing sheer abandonment of elder care as “a complicated trade-off” is utterly disgusting.
    - CPLX 7y ago
      Did anyone propose that? Do you believe that, in normal circumstances, we should repurpose all money typically spent on primary education and firefighting to go to elder care instead? If you weren’t arguing for that last year then you believe in complicated trade-offs too. The concept of trade-offs is the absolute core basis of all major public policy decisions. It’s also the basic of many personal decisions. If you’re familiar with hospice care or a DNR order then you know that end of life questions have trade-off calculations as well, even within families or between life partners. Pretending this is a binary decision is just nonsensical.
      - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        > “ Did anyone propose that?” In rereading your post carefully, the answer is yes. You did describe it that way and offer a reason to think it’s not so bad. Doing so is shameful.
      - rsecora 7y ago
        One day youngers will be elders too, and the future youngers will apply the same rules. Marines say "no one left behind", for a reason, because it creates a group... A society. The UK decision smells like eugenics.
- amscanne 7y ago
  I imagine that 2-5% of people over 70 die each year from other natural causes, if not much more. I’m not justifying anything, but I feel the death rates need to be understood in this context.
  - bcrosby95 7y ago
    What's with the focus of people over 70? If you catch this and are in your 50s or 60s, you have a decently high chance of dying. Hell, the young and healthy can go skydiving 100 times and have less chance of dying vs coronavirus. Nevermind the not dying part. Over 50% of ICU spots in France and the Netherlands for coronavirus are taken up by people under 60. Pneumonia this severe can cause permanent lung damage.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  It's not 2%-5% of the elderly, it's 10% or more. Particularly with no supportive treatment. The UK government say they will try to preferentially isolate the elderly population, but this makes very little sense. People will spread the infection regardless, and some social contacts across generations will have to occur.
- jotm 7y ago
  "Some of you may die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take"
  - zepto 7y ago
    “Some of you will die but that’s a risk I’m willing to take”
    - sgt101 7y ago
      "Some of you will die* this year, and there is nothing that anyone can do about that" *some of you will die even without the virus, more of you will die than normal because of it, this is awful, but true.
      - zepto 7y ago
        Many more of you will die than would have if I had chosen a better policy.
        sgt101 7y ago
        That may or may not be true - there's no given that there is a better policy or that any of the policies that we have seen are a better policy. We won't know until next year at least - the final counting will take a while.
- avip 7y ago
  Wake up people. The fatality in Italy borders 8% average! For that age group it's > 10% UK seems to be playing a very dangerous game.
  - CraigJPerry 7y ago
    I don’t think wake up is the right sentiment. In South Korea, Germany, the diamond princess, in fact anywhere that’s not Italy or Wuhan the death rate is lower. The higher death rates have occurred in places where the health system was overrun. Of course with the current trajectory the UK health system will be over run.
- Gupie 7y ago
  Deaths in the elderly is precisely what the UK strategy is aiming to avoid. Isolate elderly and other at risk groups until there is herd immunity in the rest of the population.
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    The UK strategy is not aiming to reduce deaths in the elderly. Claiming that it is would be a grievous lie to distract attention from the real and only reason: propping up the economy as long as possible. Claiming you can isolate at risk groups well enough while the whole country is going about its business is just putting your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  It's 2-5% of the general population. It's much higher among the elderly. And once the hospitals gets overrun it could easily be even higher than that.
glofish 7y ago
If the strategy works the UK will benefit massively. It is like seeing an experiment playing out at a societal scale. We are all looking at it from a personal level, but successful societies have always been built on sacrifices of various kinds - their costs or others (colonization)
yulaow 7y ago
And if it doesn't work it would be catastrophic in terms of impact because the NHS will collapse fast and won't be even able to process all the other medical needs of the population for an extremely long time.
- CraigJPerry 7y ago
  Taking a step back from the impact on patients, if you subscribe to conservative economic thinking, this would be a good thing in the long run. Of course the impact would be blunt but relatively short and in conservative thinking a quick swallow of a bitter pill for future benefits is a perfect idea. The future benefit being get the state out of medicine. I don’t subscribe to this view at all but having read Rees-Mogg’s daddy’s book, the Soverign Individual i will happily stake my house on the above being very close to the victorian geezer’s view on this.
- baby 7y ago
  On the other hand free healthcare!
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
overcast 7y ago
So you saying I should have call options on EWU? Probably a bit premature, but could be a good gamble.
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  TBH this looks more like you should buy a straddle.
Twisell 7y ago
There is however another underlying gamble. If they let the virus freely evolve and spread this might also give it more opportunities to mutate and maybe become more lethal whereas country that try to mitigate contagion won't offer as many hosts to try random forks...
- gruez 7y ago
  >this might also give it more opportunities to mutate and maybe become more lethal AFAIK viruses tend to mutate to be less lethal because killing the host is bad for reproduction. random source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu >This is a common occurrence with influenza viruses: there is a tendency for pathogenic viruses to become less lethal with time, as the hosts of more dangerous strains tend to die out
  - klipt 7y ago
    The first wave of the Spanish Flu mostly killed the elderly. The second wave mutated and killed young, normally healthy people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave
    - CraigJPerry 7y ago
      I see that same line being peddled out of context like this frequently these days. When you point out the young people factor you really also need to point out why that was the case and it wasn’t because of the mutation of the virus...
      - klipt 7y ago
        Wikipedia says it was a mutation, although the selective pressure on that mutation (war) is something we hopefully won't have in today's circumstances.
- empath75 7y ago
  There is very little evolutionary pressure to mutate to a more lethal variant and a lot of pressure to mutate to less dangerous variant. The ideal evolutionary strategy is to produce excess bodily fluids from sweating, coughing and sneezing, while not making people so sick that they lay down and stay home, let alone die. Viruses don’t get bonus points for being lethal, unlike certain video games.
jotm 7y ago
People are still working everywhere. It will be interesting to see GBP/EURO this week, on Friday it tumbled doooown. I predict it will go down another 5p.

On the other hand, if it works the payoff will be quite significant in terms of impact to the economy compared to the rest of the world.

by Aqua 7y ago

On the other hand, if it works the payoff will be quite significant in terms of impact to the economy compared to the rest of the world.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago

If condemning 2-5% of your elderly population to death with a shrug is seen as shrewd economic policy, I’m moving to Mars. Fuck this place.

glofish 7y ago
It has always been like that, only usually it is not this obvious. All advanced societies are built on the exploitation of someone else, you just did not get to see who those people were. Note: I am not endorsing the choice - just observing.
CPLX 7y ago
You’re going to be really upset then when you find out what happens to the elderly if you just wait a few years. This stuff always involves complicated choices. For example, would you advocate a policy of taxing all restaurant owners at a 90% marginal rate forcing most into bankruptcy to pay for a very expensive new medical treatment that only works on the elderly and extends their life just a few years? If you proposed that do you think it would be unanimous or controversial?
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  Describing sheer abandonment of elder care as “a complicated trade-off” is utterly disgusting.
  - CPLX 7y ago
    Did anyone propose that? Do you believe that, in normal circumstances, we should repurpose all money typically spent on primary education and firefighting to go to elder care instead? If you weren’t arguing for that last year then you believe in complicated trade-offs too. The concept of trade-offs is the absolute core basis of all major public policy decisions. It’s also the basic of many personal decisions. If you’re familiar with hospice care or a DNR order then you know that end of life questions have trade-off calculations as well, even within families or between life partners. Pretending this is a binary decision is just nonsensical.
    - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
      > “ Did anyone propose that?” In rereading your post carefully, the answer is yes. You did describe it that way and offer a reason to think it’s not so bad. Doing so is shameful.
    - rsecora 7y ago
      One day youngers will be elders too, and the future youngers will apply the same rules. Marines say "no one left behind", for a reason, because it creates a group... A society. The UK decision smells like eugenics.
amscanne 7y ago
I imagine that 2-5% of people over 70 die each year from other natural causes, if not much more. I’m not justifying anything, but I feel the death rates need to be understood in this context.
- bcrosby95 7y ago
  What's with the focus of people over 70? If you catch this and are in your 50s or 60s, you have a decently high chance of dying. Hell, the young and healthy can go skydiving 100 times and have less chance of dying vs coronavirus. Nevermind the not dying part. Over 50% of ICU spots in France and the Netherlands for coronavirus are taken up by people under 60. Pneumonia this severe can cause permanent lung damage.
zozbot234 7y ago
It's not 2%-5% of the elderly, it's 10% or more. Particularly with no supportive treatment. The UK government say they will try to preferentially isolate the elderly population, but this makes very little sense. People will spread the infection regardless, and some social contacts across generations will have to occur.
jotm 7y ago
"Some of you may die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take"
- zepto 7y ago
  “Some of you will die but that’s a risk I’m willing to take”
  - sgt101 7y ago
    "Some of you will die* this year, and there is nothing that anyone can do about that" *some of you will die even without the virus, more of you will die than normal because of it, this is awful, but true.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Many more of you will die than would have if I had chosen a better policy.
      - sgt101 7y ago
        That may or may not be true - there's no given that there is a better policy or that any of the policies that we have seen are a better policy. We won't know until next year at least - the final counting will take a while.
avip 7y ago
Wake up people. The fatality in Italy borders 8% average! For that age group it's > 10% UK seems to be playing a very dangerous game.
- CraigJPerry 7y ago
  I don’t think wake up is the right sentiment. In South Korea, Germany, the diamond princess, in fact anywhere that’s not Italy or Wuhan the death rate is lower. The higher death rates have occurred in places where the health system was overrun. Of course with the current trajectory the UK health system will be over run.
Gupie 7y ago
Deaths in the elderly is precisely what the UK strategy is aiming to avoid. Isolate elderly and other at risk groups until there is herd immunity in the rest of the population.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  The UK strategy is not aiming to reduce deaths in the elderly. Claiming that it is would be a grievous lie to distract attention from the real and only reason: propping up the economy as long as possible. Claiming you can isolate at risk groups well enough while the whole country is going about its business is just putting your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala.
JamesBarney 7y ago
It's 2-5% of the general population. It's much higher among the elderly. And once the hospitals gets overrun it could easily be even higher than that.

glofish 7y ago

If the strategy works the UK will benefit massively. It is like seeing an experiment playing out at a societal scale. We are all looking at it from a personal level, but successful societies have always been built on sacrifices of various kinds - their costs or others (colonization)

yulaow 7y ago

And if it doesn't work it would be catastrophic in terms of impact because the NHS will collapse fast and won't be even able to process all the other medical needs of the population for an extremely long time.

CraigJPerry 7y ago
Taking a step back from the impact on patients, if you subscribe to conservative economic thinking, this would be a good thing in the long run. Of course the impact would be blunt but relatively short and in conservative thinking a quick swallow of a bitter pill for future benefits is a perfect idea. The future benefit being get the state out of medicine. I don’t subscribe to this view at all but having read Rees-Mogg’s daddy’s book, the Soverign Individual i will happily stake my house on the above being very close to the victorian geezer’s view on this.
baby 7y ago
On the other hand free healthcare!

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

overcast 7y ago

So you saying I should have call options on EWU? Probably a bit premature, but could be a good gamble.

cycrutchfield 7y ago
TBH this looks more like you should buy a straddle.

Twisell 7y ago

There is however another underlying gamble. If they let the virus freely evolve and spread this might also give it more opportunities to mutate and maybe become more lethal whereas country that try to mitigate contagion won't offer as many hosts to try random forks...

gruez 7y ago
>this might also give it more opportunities to mutate and maybe become more lethal AFAIK viruses tend to mutate to be less lethal because killing the host is bad for reproduction. random source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu >This is a common occurrence with influenza viruses: there is a tendency for pathogenic viruses to become less lethal with time, as the hosts of more dangerous strains tend to die out
- klipt 7y ago
  The first wave of the Spanish Flu mostly killed the elderly. The second wave mutated and killed young, normally healthy people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave
  - CraigJPerry 7y ago
    I see that same line being peddled out of context like this frequently these days. When you point out the young people factor you really also need to point out why that was the case and it wasn’t because of the mutation of the virus...
    - klipt 7y ago
      Wikipedia says it was a mutation, although the selective pressure on that mutation (war) is something we hopefully won't have in today's circumstances.
empath75 7y ago
There is very little evolutionary pressure to mutate to a more lethal variant and a lot of pressure to mutate to less dangerous variant. The ideal evolutionary strategy is to produce excess bodily fluids from sweating, coughing and sneezing, while not making people so sick that they lay down and stay home, let alone die. Viruses don’t get bonus points for being lethal, unlike certain video games.

jotm 7y ago

People are still working everywhere. It will be interesting to see GBP/EURO this week, on Friday it tumbled doooown. I predict it will go down another 5p.