Lots of older people dying earlier and the cost of preventing it - how do you feel about it??

[Brainaddict]

I have been really quite taken aback by the number of people, including friends and family members, who have decided to shrug their shoulders at older people (80+ particularly) dying and say "Oh well, they would have died soon anyway." This is used for arguing against lockdowns of course, and often that's the prime purpose of the attitude, to be able to take a position that lockdowns are stupid, because that's what they want to believe. Yet still I have been quite shocked that people can so easily and glibly convince themselves of this. Motivated reasoning etc is common, but it seems to me more callous than I would have expected of some of those who've expressed it.

So honestly, how do you feel about it? Are you one of the people saying to yourself that it's fine, they would have died soon anyway? That maybe it's fine to protect the NHS but we shouldn't be going to all this kerfuffle in order to protect older people. Can you make a good argument for society's resources not being spent on protecting people who are only a few years from death anyway? It is, I admit, a calculation that gets made in various ways through the health system, but I don't know if most people think about that most of the time. Or perhaps you think the social costs of lockdowns isn't worth it to save older people? I'm interested to see how wide-spread the thinking is and how defendable it is.

If you've lost an older loved one in this, I apologise for the insensitive question. But I guess you will have encountered this attitude too. I feel like it's worth talking about because it's part of what drives non-compliance with the rules. All the younger people with long covid are forgotten of course, as they aren't useful to anti-lockdown arguments.

So how do you react when you see the death figures and realise that most of them were quite old?

 

[editor]

It shouldn't be case of either/or. The UK has ample resources to care for the old during this crisis but with a Tory government in charge, they'd rather let their chums and backers keep on doing businessy things.

 

[weltweit]

A lot of younger people have also died, I would start by pointing this out to those people.

If we scale down the response, do they want to be next?

 

[Brainaddict]

A lot of younger people have also died, I would start by pointing this out to those people.

Yeah but not that many. Comparable to road traffic accidents or something.

 

[Humberto]

Looking after the elderly properly isn't a choice, it's a basic duty. The government have found enough time and resources to help themselves and their mates out by the looks of it.

 

[planetgeli]

The cost of this to the UK economy is still nowhere fucking near the first cheque (and there were more) that was written out by the government to immediately bail out the bankers in 2008. That cheque was for £500 billion. The estimated cost of Covid to the end of the financial year in 2021 is £373 billion (though this may rise). Ironically of course, in order to pay for that banker's cheque, we then killed thousands of people with austerity.

Point that out next time some arsehole wants to kill old people.

 

[Fez909]

The cost of this to the UK economy is still nowhere fucking near the first cheque (and there were more) that was written out by the government to immediately bail out the bankers in 2008. That cheque was for £500 billion. The estimated cost of Covid to the end of the financial year in 2021 is £373 billion (though this may rise). Ironically of course, in order to pay for that banker's cheque, we then killed thousands of people with austerity.

Point that out next time some arsehole wants to kill old people.

Might as well just end the thread here, IMO.

 

[Cloo]

The way I see it is that controlling Coronovirus is not about older people not dying; it's entirely about allowing the NHS to cope with treating people - and treatment is long and intensive and needs infection management the whole time.

People who say 'We should just carry on as normal' need to think through what they're asking for when they ask for 'carrying on as normal'. The only way to do that would be for hospitals to, say, refuse to treat vulnerable people and for hundreds and thousands of people to end up being palliative carers for their family members or partners. And dying of corona isn't just coughing discreetly then kicking the bucket 2 days later - it's a long, drawn-out, painful process. It would not be 'carrying on as normal'

 

[Brainaddict]

Might as well just end the thread here, IMO.

But when people say the cost of lockdowns, do they really mean the economic cost? Do they mean the social cost? Do they mean the cost of them not being able to go see their parents/kids? Do they mean not being able to go to the pub?

If it were simple, there wouldn't be loads of people out there saying it doesn't matter if older people die a few years earlier.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yeah but not that many. Comparable to road traffic accidents or something.

Depends on how you classify 'young'. It's considerably less than that for the under-40s. I don't think the argument can really be made that a lot of younger people have also died. They haven't, and it's killed hardly any children - far more children are killed in traffic accidents.

The stats are pretty clear - a rough doubling of mortality for every six years that you've been alive. That's very different from, for instance, Spanish flu, which killed many infants and teenagers. And thank fuck for that.

I'm not arguing against protecting old people through the pandemic, btw, but those who say that this disease has devastated primarily the old are correct. The argument should be that we should value the lives of old people, not that somehow this isn't a condition that primarily affects old people.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But when people say the cost of lockdowns, do they really mean the economic cost? Do they mean the social cost? Do they mean the cost of them not being able to go see their parents/kids? Do they mean not being able to go to the pub?

If it were simple, there wouldn't be loads of people out there saying it doesn't matter if older people die a few years earlier.

The social cost of lockdown has been severe, and often that cost has also been borne by old people as they're the people most likely to be dependent on the various social services that have been decimated throughout this year. I don't give a fuck about some putatitve economic cost, but the collateral damage human costs of lockdown are real. They need to enter the equation.

 

[bimble]

The way I see it is that controlling Coronovirus is not about older people not dying; it's entirely about allowing the NHS to cope with treating people - and treatment is long and intensive and needs infection management the whole time.

People who say 'We should just carry on as normal' need to think through what they're asking for when they ask for 'carrying on as normal'. The only way to do that would be for hospitals to, say, refuse to treat vulnerable people and for hundreds and thousands of people to end up being palliative carers for their family members or partners. And dying of corona isn't just coughing discreetly then kicking the bucket 2 days later - it's a long, drawn-out, painful process. It would not be 'carrying on as normal'

Yes exactly, it is this. Because there's no slack in the system (by design) so continuing to function would mean hospitals being told to not treat anyone over... years old? or anyone with given underlying conditions? That's not a thing to even contemplate.

 

[Brainaddict]

The way I see it is that controlling Coronovirus is not about older people not dying; it's entirely about allowing the NHS to cope with treating people - and treatment is long and intensive and needs infection management the whole time.

People who say 'We should just carry on as normal' need to think through what they're asking for when they ask for 'carrying on as normal'. The only way to do that would be for hospitals to, say, refuse to treat vulnerable people and for hundreds and thousands of people to end up being palliative carers for their family members or partners. And dying of corona isn't just coughing discreetly then kicking the bucket 2 days later - it's a long, drawn-out, painful process. It would not be 'carrying on as normal'

Okay, but you are giving rational responses about what you think is really happening. I guess I was trying to make the thread about the ethical response to older people dying earlier. Whether or not people have the reason for lockdowns correct isn't really the point. Many people think that lockdowns are happening to stop old people dying and are reacting to that.

 

[Cloo]

Yes exactly, it is this. Because there's no slack in the system (by design) so continuing to function would mean hospitals being told to not treat anyone over... years old? or anyone with given underlying conditions? That's not a thing to even contemplate.

Essentially, no, I do not want to end up being a carer for my parents if there were to become very ill or be dying because people want to go to the pub.

 

[Brainaddict]

Yeah but not that many. Comparable to road traffic accidents or something.

Just to say, this is also a questionable response. In case it wasn't clear, I was answering from within the mindset of some of the people making these arguments.

 

[Cloo]

Okay, but you are giving rational responses about what you think is really happening. I guess I was trying to make the thread about the ethical response to older people dying earlier. Whether or not people have the reason for lockdowns correct isn't really the point. Many people think that lockdowns are happening to stop old people dying and are reacting to that.

I don't feel it's a dreadful tragedy for a person to die in their 80s, though it is horrible if it's after 6 weeks of isolation unable to see their families. My step-grandma is 92 and losing her eyesight and her marbles - her dying soonish may honestly be no bad thing in itself given what's coming if she lives just a few more years, but the idea of what that would mean for her final weeks is awful.

 

[weltweit]

Also, how old is old?

A 70 year old might have another 20 years of life in front of them.

 

[Brainaddict]

Also, how old is old?

A 70 year old might have another 20 years of life in front of them.

They don't die from it that often though.

 

[bimble]

Okay, but you are giving rational responses about what you think is really happening. I guess I was trying to make the thread about the ethical response to older people dying earlier. Whether or not people have the reason for lockdowns correct isn't really the point. Many people think that lockdowns are happening to stop old people dying and are reacting to that.

Yeah this is definitely a thing. It's a calculation that happens all the time, in medicine i'm sure and definitely in 'charity', they calculate the value of life-years saved, value of a child's life over an old persons life, or a person with health issues, etc.

 

[Brainaddict]

As a general point related to all of this, it has looked to me like most people aren't used to having to make ethical decisions. It seems they made decisions more according to social convention and it is painful for them to make their own decisions. When forced to make ethical decisions for which there are no conventional guidelines, many seem to either make very immediately self-interested decisions, or establish some rules of the game (like it being fine for older people to die) that then enable them to make the decision they wanted to. Maybe that is what I really wanted to talk about. I've probably confused my own thread now.

 

[weltweit]

They don't die from it that often though.

The analysis uncovers worrying trends, including a rising number of avoidable deaths among the under 50s

And other age / deaths data from the USA : COVID-19 Provisional Counts - Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics (cdc.gov)

 

[farmerbarleymow]

it's entirely about allowing the NHS to cope with treating people

And the issue is the NHS is basically just focusing on covid, with huge collateral damage to those waiting for endlessly delayed elective treatment. It's a bloody mess all round really.

 

[Cloo]

It is interesting to think how removed we are from death today in the developed world. Round about 100 years ago it was a fairly normal part of life to look after ill family members (well, for women to do so, I guess), often childen, who might well die - but it's not something we should be asked to go back to.

 

[weltweit]

Also Brainaddict while we know that younger people are getting infected, in the main recovering, what we have no idea of is the long term effects of having the virus in our systems. So far we only know the short term. There are quite a few virus in human circulation with nasty long term effects, if we have the option to prevent infection - in all age groups - that would seem the safest option to me.

 

[Brainaddict]

Also Brainaddict while we know that younger people are getting infected, in the main recovering, what we have no idea of is the long term effects of having the virus in our systems. So far we only know the short term. There are quite a few virus in human circulation with nasty long term effects, if we have the option to prevent infection - in all age groups - that would seem the safest option to me.

Well, my health has been fucked by covid this year. I don't know if or when I recover. I am unable to do many of the things that I love as I can only do limited exercise. But interestingly, all the friends and family who have decided to take a more blase attitude to the virus simply ignore this.

 

[elbows]

I wouldnt measure it simply by age of those dying, I would look at stuff like QALY's - Quality Adjusted Life Years.

Even if nobody gave any shits about people over a certain age dying in this pandemic, the government would still be forced to do draconian things. Because the hospitalisation rates start to shoot up in age groups that are still way below the age people tend to think of as being really old. And so if you just let the virus spread everywhere with no restrictions I would still expect hospital system problems. Also, catching Covid-19 in hospital is an issue and so even if people tried not to care about the pandemic, the virus would still end up disrupting other routine healthcare. Governments would also care about levels of death that caused the death management system to collapse. Also there are implications for the way we put the elderly in care if peoples perceptions of care home shifts towards such settings being associated with a more immediate death sentence than is traditionally the case.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Well, my health has been fucked by covid this year. I don't know if or when I recover. I am unable to do many of the things that I love as I can only do limited exercise. But interestingly, all the friends and family who have decided to take a more blase attitude to the virus simply ignore this.

Sorry to hear that. I'm the opposite - no covid impact, but major impact due to major delays in elective surgery. We can't win sadly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't care for the kinds of argument being made by the people reported in the OP at all, but various aspects of the attempts to control the spread of covid do need questioning, in particular when it comes to the most vulnerable and the suffering that has been inflicted on them in their name. 'We must be stricter' has all too often been an unthinking mantra.

In Scotland, for example, visiting a care home is allowed only if the entire home is free of any covid-19 symptoms for 28 days and even then there must be approval from the local director of public health. In Leeds, England, it isn’t illegal to visit, but local government guidance says you must have a very good reason, and the example given is if someone is dying. The problem is that most people in care homes are in the last two years of life. The median length of stay for people admitted to nursing beds is less than a year.

Most people in care homes have dementia, and for them, the end-of-life phase can last for weeks, months or even years according to the Alzheimer’s Society, even though the rules about visiting often prevent family contact until the last few days. It is well documented that social isolation accelerates deterioration in people with dementia. So, these restrictions are killing people.

The government policy for England states that “the first priority is preventing infection in care homes”. A death in someone who has tested positive for covid-19 may be due to another cause. Infections are measured relentlessly, and many cases have been recorded as covid-19 without any test. This may mean the case numbers in care homes have been overstated. The risk of people’s conditions worsening and them dying because they are cut off from family and friends isn’t measured.

The care home operators and the public health officials who have the final decision on local visiting rules have a real dilemma. Because of the reputational damage and legal risks that would arise from an outbreak, they feel forced to apply maximum visiting restrictions even where it separates families for months on end.

This is not just an issue in the UK. International concern is increasing about the negative impact of visiting restrictions on the health and well-being of care home residents and their families and a review of covid-19 in care homes led by the London School of Economics, which involved researchers in Australia and Canada, found no evidence of visitor impact on infections.

Coronavirus rules for care homes are too strict and not science-based

 

[elbows]

I don't care for the kinds of argument being made by the people reported in the OP at all, but various aspects of the attempts to control the spread of covid do need questioning, in particular when it comes to the most vulnerable and the suffering that has been inflicted on them in their name. 'We must be stricter' has all too often been an unthinking mantra.

If there had been less resistance in stupid ways to various obviously sensible and necessary measures then there would have been more room in the picture to take a softer approach in some of these more delicate areas.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

So far only my 81 year old mum has come up with this to my (over the phone) face.
I disagree, but I do have to listen to her stating this and how she ignores all the rules to live her life as she wants every phone call.