4 ms·

Well let's say there was one extra suicide caused by lockdowns. And we know that something like 2/3 of Covid "deaths" are occurring in nursing homes among very

Well let's say there was one extra suicide caused by lockdowns. And we know that something like 2/3 of Covid "deaths" are occurring in nursing homes among very elderly who, statistically, might live a year or so longer had they not got Covid. If we're comparing years of life, isn't one 16 year old worth 60-70 85 year olds in nursing homes? Maybe more because one year in the life of an 84 year old who's already experienced a full life is worth a lot less than a 16 year old going on 17. Societally wise, it's much worse to sacrifice a young person for an 80 year old who's essentially a burden on the rest. This comparison of the value of a life is morbid, but we've been making decisions like this anyway, even if the media has refused to speak of it openly. And of course this assumes that all these lockdowns, school closings, etc. made any difference. Again, we can debate that and both sides have data to make their case. So yeah, maybe one or two suicides and the massive increase of unknown mental health issues weren't a good tradeoff for the unknown number of mostly elderly whose lives were extended a year or two.

ipaddr 6y ago
Lockdowns have made a big difference. Places like New Zealand have 0 cases. The half lockdowns have lower but mixed results. An 80 year old has a lot of life in them. Some may have a year or two but others will have 20 or 30 years left.
- chii 6y ago
  even if the 80 yr old has 20 yrs of life left, it still means that a 16 yr old is worth at least 3 80 yr olds. and the 80 yr olds do not contribute to the economy or work, and is indeed a "burden" (sad to say, but they can't really sustain themselves without external resources, as their economic value output is zero). The 16 yr old will likely contribute to society for 40 years at least. i'm not saying the lockdowns weren't necessary - they were. I'm saying that the costs are high, and society has asked the young to make a sacrifice for the elderly, and yet has not gotten much in return. At least some token appreciation for them is the least that can be done. After all, we praise the servicemen/women for their war efforts, well into their years, and i don't see this as being that different.
  - ipaddr 6y ago
    The long term damage to those who catch it seems high in many cases including the young. The majority of people getting covid are young so the impact is not understood and not nil. I'm not sure the young are making anywhere near same sacrifice compared to the war effort in terms of lives and limbs and post war mental effects. The really young are the future. Anyone in there late teens and 20s is past that point. The work from home training/conditioning the younger generation received will payoff when they reach 20. While your generation may struggle with the isolation by preparing the next generation those issues will disappear reaping larger economic benefits. In terms of praise, remember all age groups are staying home. Appreciation should first be given to the soldiers (nurses,people who put themselves in danger) but appreciation should be given to everyone who stayed at home, everyone who convinced someone stop doing something that would spread this and everyone who did all they could to stop the spread.
    - tdfx 6y ago
      > The long term damage to those who catch it seems high in many cases including the young. > While your generation may struggle with the isolation by preparing the next generation those issues will disappear reaping larger economic benefits. It feels inconsistent that you're dismissing the long term effects of one potential problem (isolation) while using the potential harm of another (undemonstrated, theoretical long term damage to young people from COVID infection) to argue your point.
  - polishdude20 6y ago
    I think the return you get from saving the elderly is the example that is shown to the young. The example shows the young that life when you're elderly isn't miserable and people WILL care for you. Society doesn't take care of the elderly solely for the elderly's sake. The bigger benefit is the example it makes to the younger generations who will be elderly themselves in due time. I can imagine in a society where I see the elderly treated badly, I probably won't have much hope for when id get to that state. It's like saying "when you're older, we will treat you like shit" and people going back to society and saying "if you're gonna treat me like shit, I'm not going to be a productive member of society like you want me to"
- Talanes 6y ago
  The parent comment specified elderly in nursing homes, which is statistically correct. The 80 year old with 30 years of nursing home life ahead of them is a wealthy anomaly.
- throwaway8581 6y ago
  New Zealand is an island (two islands) that never had massive community spread. Once you cross into community spread you can't go back to being in a place like New Zealand. In most countries, there was wide community spread before anyone was even thinking about lockdowns. Also, the average length of stay in a nursing home is under a year. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45950714_Length_of_Stay_for_Older_Adults_Residing_in_Nursing_Homes_at_the_End_of_Life https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45950714_Length_of_...
tdfx 6y ago
There's a term for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year And the fact that the majority of COVID-19 deaths are people with very few quality-adjusted life years remaining is almost entirely missed by the media coverage.

ipaddr 6y ago

Lockdowns have made a big difference. Places like New Zealand have 0 cases. The half lockdowns have lower but mixed results. An 80 year old has a lot of life in them. Some may have a year or two but others will have 20 or 30 years left.

chii 6y ago
even if the 80 yr old has 20 yrs of life left, it still means that a 16 yr old is worth at least 3 80 yr olds. and the 80 yr olds do not contribute to the economy or work, and is indeed a "burden" (sad to say, but they can't really sustain themselves without external resources, as their economic value output is zero). The 16 yr old will likely contribute to society for 40 years at least. i'm not saying the lockdowns weren't necessary - they were. I'm saying that the costs are high, and society has asked the young to make a sacrifice for the elderly, and yet has not gotten much in return. At least some token appreciation for them is the least that can be done. After all, we praise the servicemen/women for their war efforts, well into their years, and i don't see this as being that different.
- ipaddr 6y ago
  The long term damage to those who catch it seems high in many cases including the young. The majority of people getting covid are young so the impact is not understood and not nil. I'm not sure the young are making anywhere near same sacrifice compared to the war effort in terms of lives and limbs and post war mental effects. The really young are the future. Anyone in there late teens and 20s is past that point. The work from home training/conditioning the younger generation received will payoff when they reach 20. While your generation may struggle with the isolation by preparing the next generation those issues will disappear reaping larger economic benefits. In terms of praise, remember all age groups are staying home. Appreciation should first be given to the soldiers (nurses,people who put themselves in danger) but appreciation should be given to everyone who stayed at home, everyone who convinced someone stop doing something that would spread this and everyone who did all they could to stop the spread.
  - tdfx 6y ago
    > The long term damage to those who catch it seems high in many cases including the young. > While your generation may struggle with the isolation by preparing the next generation those issues will disappear reaping larger economic benefits. It feels inconsistent that you're dismissing the long term effects of one potential problem (isolation) while using the potential harm of another (undemonstrated, theoretical long term damage to young people from COVID infection) to argue your point.
- polishdude20 6y ago
  I think the return you get from saving the elderly is the example that is shown to the young. The example shows the young that life when you're elderly isn't miserable and people WILL care for you. Society doesn't take care of the elderly solely for the elderly's sake. The bigger benefit is the example it makes to the younger generations who will be elderly themselves in due time. I can imagine in a society where I see the elderly treated badly, I probably won't have much hope for when id get to that state. It's like saying "when you're older, we will treat you like shit" and people going back to society and saying "if you're gonna treat me like shit, I'm not going to be a productive member of society like you want me to"
Talanes 6y ago
The parent comment specified elderly in nursing homes, which is statistically correct. The 80 year old with 30 years of nursing home life ahead of them is a wealthy anomaly.
throwaway8581 6y ago
New Zealand is an island (two islands) that never had massive community spread. Once you cross into community spread you can't go back to being in a place like New Zealand. In most countries, there was wide community spread before anyone was even thinking about lockdowns. Also, the average length of stay in a nursing home is under a year. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45950714_Length_of_Stay_for_Older_Adults_Residing_in_Nursing_Homes_at_the_End_of_Life https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45950714_Length_of_...

tdfx 6y ago

There's a term for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year And the fact that the majority of COVID-19 deaths are people with very few quality-adjusted life years remaining is almost entirely missed by the media coverage.