4 ms·

FWIW, I don't feel that way at all (re throwing old people under the bus). I think that what's happened is the opposite - the young have been thrown under the

FWIW, I don't feel that way at all (re throwing old people under the bus). I think that what's happened is the opposite - the young have been thrown under the bus (even disregarding social activity we have things like school closures, university admissions, exams cancelled), and that economic activity is being hindered unnecessarily, which is having enormous knock-on effects already which will persist for a generation. I think that the appropriate response is for the vulnerable (old, immunocompromised, or really just anyone with low risk tolerance) to isolate and be given the resources to do so. Care homes, for example, should be dealt with via paying the staff much higher salaries and having them stay on-site, effectively 'sealing off' the care home and creating an isolated unit. If you're poor and have to go to work, you should be given enough money such that it's your free choice and you can stay at home if you want. My vulnerable friends and family are forced into doing this, lockdown or no lockdown, they're disinfecting packages, haven't been outside for months, and probably will be forced into a "new way of life" for the foreseeable future. This is the sort of thing that we should be using the severe lockdown time for - determining an appropriate way of protecting the individuals which we know to have very high fatality/complication rates - the people for whom we're bothering to do this at all. What I strongly disagree with is the idea that the lives of the healthy should be deleted in some asinine attempt to drag out the (in my view, inevitable) death toll over a multi-year period.

mattmanser 6y ago
But those things aren't in place and they won't be. Because our government sucks and are incompetent. So now you're in a place where you're intelligent enough, and aware enough, that you follow the rules or you play Russian Roulette with people's lives. Rage all you want about what could be and reality, the two rarely meet.
- esotericn 6y ago
  Yeah, I'm doing everything I can personally at the moment, this is more a discussion around how in N months I feel hands will be forced. The current situation is some sort of distributed trade of mental health for physical health; the brains of the youth for the bodies of the old. It's not a stable state and will break at some point. Regarding "russian roulette": Everyone I know who feels at significant risk is doing the whole "don't leave the house" thing. Care homes are almost certainly fucked regardless. I tend to think the major impact is going to be amongst 50+ year olds who are in good health and decide that they can't be arsed with staying inside. We basically don't have a way to deal with this issue collectively.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    >> The current situation is some sort of distributed trade of mental health for physical health; the brains of the youth for the bodies of the old. The young are the old, in due time. I'm guessing that the majority of young people today would prefer to grow old in a society that will care for them, that has demonstrated that it will care for them, rather than one that is prepared to "throw them under the bus" to "protect the young". All of us are young at some point and many of us will grow old. We must be treated fairly in both states. The sensible way to do that in the current situation is to establish some sort of protocol for interaction with each other that will allow economic life to go on, because obviously everyone wants that, but without exposing the vulnerable to the virus. And that doesn't mean locking them up until it's gone, because that is still throwing them under the bus. After all, there is a substantial minority of people with chronic diseases etc that are still young, and have many productive years of life ahead of them. But for the rest, also, there is what I say above: if we throw the old under the bus now, we'll throw the young under the bus also, when it's their turn to be old. And this protocol must necessarily be a strict form of social distancing and some measure to reduce transmission, like wearing masks. We know that works. Until there is a better solution, that's the best solution. So there's no point in saying "this can't be done, you'll find me at the pub". It has to be done. And it has to be done for the good of everyone, young and old, vulnerable and strong. There's no point in thinking that "I'm young, this doesn't affect me" and carrying on as before because "it only kills the old and sick". One day, you yourself will be old and sick. And whatever kills the old and sick at that point will get you, unless the young and strong around you take care of you, like we are asked to take care of the old and sick right now. And if young people don't care for the old and sick right now, they're digging their own graves.
    - sdwa 6y ago
      Why can't the old be "locked up"? They already are, along with the rest of the population! > they're digging their own graves Digging our graves for when we're old? Yes, we are all going to die, and probably when we are old. I find your framing interesting though, as if it would be the young treating old people like crap by ultimately choosing to get on with their lives as the mental health costs creep up and up. No, it's the virus, a force of nature, that is doing that. Denying our humanity by enforcing social distancing, well I fail to see how this is a objectively moral position, either. Lockdown and social distancing is fine and good, but it cannot extend towards a year or more, people will not stand for it.
sneak 6y ago
> Care homes, for example, should be dealt with via paying the staff much higher salaries and having them stay on-site, effectively 'sealing off' the care home and creating an isolated unit. That's not feasible. Those people have families, too. They can't even realistically do this with the NBA and associated support staff, and that's a hell of a lot fewer people than vulnerable/old people and their support staff. I, too, wish it were that easy, but it's simply not.
- myk9001 6y ago
  "That's not feasible. Those people have families, too." Why not? I don't think the parent meant staff should stay on-site forever. There can be shifts. Staff on shift get tested or even stay isolated for two weeks, then enter the unit, spend a month on-site and leave for home. Does this sound like a dream job? Not really, I guess. Does it sound that different from sailors, long-haul drivers, deployed military personnel and many other professionals who stay away from their families for prolonged period of times?
  - esotericn 6y ago
    Strawmen everywhere as of late. It has to happen, because people cannot stay inside forever, with all the will in the world. This is definitional unless you're planning to create a police state and forcibly prevent the young from interacting with each other for years at a time. Protecting the vulnerable is the only practical solution.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
      >> Protecting the vulnerable is the only practical solution. It is not a practical solution because there is no political will to do it and there is not the competency to do it even if the political will was present.
  - majewsky 6y ago
    > Staff on shift get tested or even stay isolated for two weeks, then enter the unit, spend a month on-site and leave for home. So we have four weeks of quarantine for every month worked. That means we would need double the staff, and also we would have to pay them way more to even find someone willing/able [1] to accept this shift arrangement. This means that a huge part of the inhabitants will be priced out of the nursing home market and forced to stay at home with inadequate care. [1] Re "able to accept this", for instance, single mothers would not be able to work under these conditions at all.

mattmanser 6y ago

But those things aren't in place and they won't be. Because our government sucks and are incompetent. So now you're in a place where you're intelligent enough, and aware enough, that you follow the rules or you play Russian Roulette with people's lives. Rage all you want about what could be and reality, the two rarely meet.

esotericn 6y ago
Yeah, I'm doing everything I can personally at the moment, this is more a discussion around how in N months I feel hands will be forced. The current situation is some sort of distributed trade of mental health for physical health; the brains of the youth for the bodies of the old. It's not a stable state and will break at some point. Regarding "russian roulette": Everyone I know who feels at significant risk is doing the whole "don't leave the house" thing. Care homes are almost certainly fucked regardless. I tend to think the major impact is going to be amongst 50+ year olds who are in good health and decide that they can't be arsed with staying inside. We basically don't have a way to deal with this issue collectively.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  >> The current situation is some sort of distributed trade of mental health for physical health; the brains of the youth for the bodies of the old. The young are the old, in due time. I'm guessing that the majority of young people today would prefer to grow old in a society that will care for them, that has demonstrated that it will care for them, rather than one that is prepared to "throw them under the bus" to "protect the young". All of us are young at some point and many of us will grow old. We must be treated fairly in both states. The sensible way to do that in the current situation is to establish some sort of protocol for interaction with each other that will allow economic life to go on, because obviously everyone wants that, but without exposing the vulnerable to the virus. And that doesn't mean locking them up until it's gone, because that is still throwing them under the bus. After all, there is a substantial minority of people with chronic diseases etc that are still young, and have many productive years of life ahead of them. But for the rest, also, there is what I say above: if we throw the old under the bus now, we'll throw the young under the bus also, when it's their turn to be old. And this protocol must necessarily be a strict form of social distancing and some measure to reduce transmission, like wearing masks. We know that works. Until there is a better solution, that's the best solution. So there's no point in saying "this can't be done, you'll find me at the pub". It has to be done. And it has to be done for the good of everyone, young and old, vulnerable and strong. There's no point in thinking that "I'm young, this doesn't affect me" and carrying on as before because "it only kills the old and sick". One day, you yourself will be old and sick. And whatever kills the old and sick at that point will get you, unless the young and strong around you take care of you, like we are asked to take care of the old and sick right now. And if young people don't care for the old and sick right now, they're digging their own graves.
  - sdwa 6y ago
    Why can't the old be "locked up"? They already are, along with the rest of the population! > they're digging their own graves Digging our graves for when we're old? Yes, we are all going to die, and probably when we are old. I find your framing interesting though, as if it would be the young treating old people like crap by ultimately choosing to get on with their lives as the mental health costs creep up and up. No, it's the virus, a force of nature, that is doing that. Denying our humanity by enforcing social distancing, well I fail to see how this is a objectively moral position, either. Lockdown and social distancing is fine and good, but it cannot extend towards a year or more, people will not stand for it.

sneak 6y ago

> Care homes, for example, should be dealt with via paying the staff much higher salaries and having them stay on-site, effectively 'sealing off' the care home and creating an isolated unit. That's not feasible. Those people have families, too. They can't even realistically do this with the NBA and associated support staff, and that's a hell of a lot fewer people than vulnerable/old people and their support staff. I, too, wish it were that easy, but it's simply not.

myk9001 6y ago
"That's not feasible. Those people have families, too." Why not? I don't think the parent meant staff should stay on-site forever. There can be shifts. Staff on shift get tested or even stay isolated for two weeks, then enter the unit, spend a month on-site and leave for home. Does this sound like a dream job? Not really, I guess. Does it sound that different from sailors, long-haul drivers, deployed military personnel and many other professionals who stay away from their families for prolonged period of times?
- esotericn 6y ago
  Strawmen everywhere as of late. It has to happen, because people cannot stay inside forever, with all the will in the world. This is definitional unless you're planning to create a police state and forcibly prevent the young from interacting with each other for years at a time. Protecting the vulnerable is the only practical solution.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    >> Protecting the vulnerable is the only practical solution. It is not a practical solution because there is no political will to do it and there is not the competency to do it even if the political will was present.
- majewsky 6y ago
  > Staff on shift get tested or even stay isolated for two weeks, then enter the unit, spend a month on-site and leave for home. So we have four weeks of quarantine for every month worked. That means we would need double the staff, and also we would have to pay them way more to even find someone willing/able [1] to accept this shift arrangement. This means that a huge part of the inhabitants will be priced out of the nursing home market and forced to stay at home with inadequate care. [1] Re "able to accept this", for instance, single mothers would not be able to work under these conditions at all.