3 ms·

I am worried there is a fine line between 'realism' and a backlash against care for the elderly and chronically ill. When people realise that their earnings ha

by sago 7y ago

I am worried there is a fine line between 'realism' and a backlash against care for the elderly and chronically ill. When people realise that their earnings have been slashed, they have been burdened with years of increased taxes, the economy has plunged, and swathes of businesses have gone bust, for the sake of people who were going to die soon anyway... Realism is good. But it is easy to 'evidence' biased anti-vulnerable feeling with 'realism'. I'm not convinced that if most people understood the realistic risk to themselves, they would do what's necessary to protect the people at much greater risk. The last week of the 'let's be realistic' zeitgeist on the news comment thread I visit. As usual with such pessimism, I really hope I'm wrong.

CriticalCathed 7y ago
>I am worried there is a fine line between 'realism' and a backlash against care for the elderly and chronically ill. I guarantee you that if we don't target our lockdowns on the at-risk population (elderly being the most numerous in that group), whatever backlash there is will be worse when the general population realizes they aren't at any significant personal risk.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  > ... when the general population realizes they aren't at any significant personal risk With 15-20% of confirmed cases needing intensive care and symptoms developing at roughly the same rate, it becomes a perfect storm. So deaths may begin with only the elderly or immune compromised, it likely won't stop there as the younger folks need care they can't get. Perhaps they survive anyway, but an unknown number with permanent lung damage and lower quality of life. General population may come to any number of realizations. The underlying reality may never become entirely clear to any of us. Y2K probably could have been much worse. Yet the media coverage around the aftermath gave the impression it was no big thing.

by sago 7y ago

CriticalCathed 7y ago

>I am worried there is a fine line between 'realism' and a backlash against care for the elderly and chronically ill. I guarantee you that if we don't target our lockdowns on the at-risk population (elderly being the most numerous in that group), whatever backlash there is will be worse when the general population realizes they aren't at any significant personal risk.

paulryanrogers 7y ago
> ... when the general population realizes they aren't at any significant personal risk With 15-20% of confirmed cases needing intensive care and symptoms developing at roughly the same rate, it becomes a perfect storm. So deaths may begin with only the elderly or immune compromised, it likely won't stop there as the younger folks need care they can't get. Perhaps they survive anyway, but an unknown number with permanent lung damage and lower quality of life. General population may come to any number of realizations. The underlying reality may never become entirely clear to any of us. Y2K probably could have been much worse. Yet the media coverage around the aftermath gave the impression it was no big thing.