4 ms·

> even if the under 50 doesn't die from it but requires hospitalization that's both a resource that can't be used by the above 50's, Frankly this is a wronghe

by paulmd 7y ago

> even if the under 50 doesn't die from it but requires hospitalization that's both a resource that can't be used by the above 50's, Frankly this is a wrongheaded position from a triage perspective. The macro-socially correct answer is that you should prefer the person who still has 40-60 years of life over the person who is going to die in 5 or 10 or 20. It's a very boomer-centric perspective that youngs are somehow "stealing a bed" from a boomer. But that's nothing new from that generation. Really it's the other way around, treating grandma is stealing a bed out from underneath her grandkid and leaving them to die. You may find that crass or distasteful, but that's the reality of triage. You don't do triage until you don't have enough medical resources to go around, but then you have to make choices. In Italy, they won't admit 70+'s to a hospital at all. That's how triage works. That's the correct way for triage to work. It's harsh but true.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
I understand triage, but triage is only triage because it has to be - if we can prevent that from happening we should. That's my point. Let's try as much as possible to prevent these life or death scenarios from occurring. For young people to act in a way that will get us into a triage situation is an incredibly selfish act that is preventable.
- paulmd 7y ago
  We're going to be in a triage situation regardless. Yes, people shouldn't be doing stupid things that increase risk, but is it the cause of the problem, would not doing it fix the problem? No. Singling out particular groups of people for doing stupid things at one point in time isn't really fair. There are olds who keep going to church as well, they have just as much culpability here. But it's much more popular to point the news cameras at some kids on spring break than a church packed shoulder to shoulder with boomers. That generation makes a point of shitting on zoomers every chance they get, and if you point it out they cry about ageism as if that's not exactly what they were doing themselves. It's "avocado toast" playing out all over again. (in all of these cases, I think the states are rightfully clamping down on what's allowable. My parents spent the last two days whining at me that their reservation at a florida state park got cancelled. So that spring break thing probably won't repeat. And the maximum size for a public gathering is coming down rapidly... states were setting limits like 250 a week or so ago, now that number is 50 and some states are going to 5 or 10. This problem is basically solving itself. But are you being ageist about it by singling out zoomers as being some unique problem here? Yes, absolutely.)
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    I'm pushing back against the ageism. The initial claim was "Those who are younger seem to be mildly affected for the most part and could go on with their lives as long as they didn't interact with the older population." I'm saying that's not true and irresponsible. Absolutely everyone needs to be held accountable for being irresponsible.
    - psychlops 7y ago
      The virus is ageist (it is also sexist and doesn't like smokers much), not the sentence. Specifically, which part of that sentence do you believe is not true? You may subjectively claim irresponsible, but the measures being taken across the entire population are not without consequences.

by paulmd 7y ago

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

I understand triage, but triage is only triage because it has to be - if we can prevent that from happening we should. That's my point. Let's try as much as possible to prevent these life or death scenarios from occurring. For young people to act in a way that will get us into a triage situation is an incredibly selfish act that is preventable.

paulmd 7y ago
We're going to be in a triage situation regardless. Yes, people shouldn't be doing stupid things that increase risk, but is it the cause of the problem, would not doing it fix the problem? No. Singling out particular groups of people for doing stupid things at one point in time isn't really fair. There are olds who keep going to church as well, they have just as much culpability here. But it's much more popular to point the news cameras at some kids on spring break than a church packed shoulder to shoulder with boomers. That generation makes a point of shitting on zoomers every chance they get, and if you point it out they cry about ageism as if that's not exactly what they were doing themselves. It's "avocado toast" playing out all over again. (in all of these cases, I think the states are rightfully clamping down on what's allowable. My parents spent the last two days whining at me that their reservation at a florida state park got cancelled. So that spring break thing probably won't repeat. And the maximum size for a public gathering is coming down rapidly... states were setting limits like 250 a week or so ago, now that number is 50 and some states are going to 5 or 10. This problem is basically solving itself. But are you being ageist about it by singling out zoomers as being some unique problem here? Yes, absolutely.)
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
  I'm pushing back against the ageism. The initial claim was "Those who are younger seem to be mildly affected for the most part and could go on with their lives as long as they didn't interact with the older population." I'm saying that's not true and irresponsible. Absolutely everyone needs to be held accountable for being irresponsible.
  - psychlops 7y ago
    The virus is ageist (it is also sexist and doesn't like smokers much), not the sentence. Specifically, which part of that sentence do you believe is not true? You may subjectively claim irresponsible, but the measures being taken across the entire population are not without consequences.