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

[frogwoman]

Well younger people and children have died from it and previously fit and active people are suffering from 'long covid'. Not to mention all the cancer patients etc who can't get treated because the hospitals are full of covid. I think attitudes like this are unconscionable tbh

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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.

This issue isn't particularly dependent on how well or badly other aspects of covid containment are going. It has to do with accurately measuring risk and assessing whether one risk (prolonged isolation) is greater than another (visitors bringing in covid with them). The article mentions a key factor here: reputational damage and legal risks arising from an outbreak. People have died miserable and lonely deaths as a result of that calculation - ironically enough, a calculation of economic risk that resulted in tighter covid controls.

 

[gentlegreen]

I have pencilled-in being an active centenarian and still having things to keep me interested in life - so I'm not taking any chances.
It's been an interesting year to turn 60 and contemplating the lives of older people - the 90-ish ex-neighbour who moved into sheltered housing up the road after 30 years .., but who I still sometimes saw going to the supermarket ... I have no way of knowing if she's still alive ... the healthier independent ones still regularly shopping back in April, but not wearing a mask ...

 

[elbows]

This issue isn't particularly dependent on how well or badly other aspects of covid containment are going. It has to do with accurately measuring risk and assessing whether one risk (prolonged isolation) is greater than another (visitors bringing in covid with them). The article mentions a key factor here: reputational damage and legal risks arising from an outbreak. People have died miserable and lonely deaths as a result of that calculation - ironically enough, a calculation of economic risk that resulted in tighter covid controls.

The risk equations for infection in those settings are linked to the prevalence of virus in the broader community. Most aspects of the pandemic are actually joined up in that way. Failure on some fronts invites stronger measures in others.

 

[elbows]

Plus its not lost on me that a lot of the wankers who oppose general measures to tackle the pandemic in wider society, often try to backup their stance by suggesting harm can be minimised by successfully shielding the vulnerable and care homes. But a big part of shiedling those places more effectively than has been managed thus far, is to keep levels of the virus everywhere down. Thats the closest thing there is to a magic wand, tackle the virus strongly and seriously in general, but thats the very opposite of what those peoples anti-lockdown stances lead to. Its often the same with hospital infections, they are seen as almost inevitable when levels of infection in the community goes above a certain level, and really heavy, cold measures are required to compensate for this. Act tougher, quicker and the burden shifts, the options grow. Dont take the opposite stance at every possible turn, resist, quibble, deny, as then you are just amplifying the problem, leading to more of the measures you hate.

 

[Humberto]

Yep, although I now hate the phrase a bit, we are all in it together. Old, young; it's inescapably a collective responsibility and has to carry everyone in this effort. It's not a generational problem of separate groups' priorities, it's a political one of the mishandling of the situation by those with the duty to take measures. Globally too, you take care of the sick or you abandon them and all of us lose. Feels a bit 'the moral of the story is...' but others have said it already. So this 'ok boomer' shite can fuck the fuck off.

 

[lazythursday]

I think if Covid caused a percentage of older people to drop down dead within a couple of days of infection we wouldn't be having any of these conversations - it is the healthcare aspect that has driven the whole response as even callous Tories know what would happen to the government if families all had to watch Granny die slowly in their front room with no medical intervention whatsoever.

I myself have had mixed feelings about the care home deaths. My father was in a care home a few years ago for his last six months, and he had very little quality of life. And on average people do not live for very long once they enter a home in any case (of course there are exceptions). I struggle on the basis of my experience to find the care home outbreaks particularly tragic.

 

[elbows]

I myself have had mixed feelings about the care home deaths. My father was in a care home a few years ago for his last six months, and he had very little quality of life. And on average people do not live for very long once they enter a home in any case (of course there are exceptions). I struggle on the basis of my experience to find the care home outbreaks particularly tragic.

Such thoughts have something in common with the grim and old fashioned references to pneumonia as 'old mans friend'.

It is understandable, in the same way that me and my mother have a form of relief that her sister passed away some months before this pandemic began.

Also another reason I will want to measure this pandemics toll in terms of Quality of Life Years lost, rather than just pure number of deaths, age of those who died etc. How much quality life time a person would still have experienced if they had not caught this virus is one way to judge things that makes quite a lot of sense to me, and it can end up incorporating not just deaths but also long term health complications in some of those who survive.

 

[elbows]

Oops I've been getting the terminology slightly wrong, its "Quality-adjusted life year" that I am on about, a standardised measure.

 

[Dogsauce]

Yep, although I now hate the phrase a bit, we are all in it together. Old, young; it's inescapably a collective responsibility and has to carry everyone in this effort. It's not a generational problem of separate groups' priorities, it's a political one of the mishandling of the situation by those with the duty to take measures. Globally too, you take care of the sick or you abandon them and all of us lose. Feels a bit 'the moral of the story is...' but others have said it already. So this 'ok boomer' shite can fuck the fuck off.

yes, basically this, solidarity across generations, because anything less is unconscionable. Shouldn’t really be difficult to explain the concept of solidarity to people who consider themselves ‘on the left’ although I‘m not sure a lot of them are anymore.

 

[Dogsauce]

& this is pretty old, a bit cheesy, and has probably been posted before, but still applies.



I guess the converse of this statement is that the busy streets I’ve seen recently could be indicative of a lack of love.

 

[Dogsauce]

Oops I've been getting the terminology slightly wrong, its "Quality-adjusted life year" that I am on about, a standardised measure.

We shouldn’t just think of these things in terms of the quality of life of the individual, but also those they are connected to. My kids love being at their grandparents, and if they lost five or ten years of that due to one of them succumbing to the virus it’s a significant chunk of childhood experience missing for them.

 

[Aladdin]

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.

What about people with underlying conditions?

These stats are from Ireland.

https://www.hpsc.ie/a-z/respiratory/coronavirus/novelcoronavirus/surveillance/underlyingconditionsreports/Underlying%20conditions%20summary_1.0v%2014122020.pdf

You'll see that underlying conditions are a huge factor in deaths. 98% of deaths are in people with underlying conditions. 41% of people with heart conditions who contracted covid19 ..died. 32% who had chronic neurological disease and contracted covid19 .. died.
20% of those with hypertension who contracted covid19
died. 11% of CKD patients who caught Covid 19 died.
And the list goes on.

They're not all elderly.

People can have CKD or diabetes or heart problems at any age

 

[Aladdin]

As for ethics?
I hear the likes of Michael McDowell in Ireland spouting on about opening the economy and shouting "where is the evidence that the virus is x y z blah blah".
He thinks he is highly intelligent. He demands statistics from NPHET(public health drs) as if he could ever understand them..
A guy like him thinks he is so intelligent that he should be able to understand epidemiology. Something the real experts have studied for decades. So when he doesnt understand he blames NPHET. The guy is now dangerous spouting his shite on radio and Irish Times articles. He is now at the stage where he is so anti public health experts that he foams at the mouth. Today he wad arrogant enough to declare on tv "I KNOW what I'm talking about".
And of course vintners and hotels are all saying he is talking sense.
Well...If I met him I'd ask him who he thinks will be propping up the country when people start dying in bigger numbers and medical staff have to self isolate or not go to work because of exposure. What makes him think Ireland is somehow more immune than Brazil? THE ONLY group that saved lives was and is the Public Health Emergency Team. Their push for early lockdown was crucial. They have been spot on about the virus from day 1
They are cautious and careful and have the scientific mods ready to show the trajectory of the virus.

I think that if money is put at a higher value than the life of a vulnerable person, then our society is not worth living in and needs a major overhaul.
Restaurants and pubs will hopefully bounce back...
Dead people don't.

 

[elbows]

I think that if money is put at a higher value than the life of a vulnerable person, then our society is not worth living in and needs a major overhaul.

Other clues about that incude the fact that when they modelled the impact of lockdown, recession etc, looking at various things like impact on QALYs, less people die and loose years of quality life at the start of the recession, because thats what happens in recessions. Later if the economic doom continues over a longer period, other factors start to weigh in a negative direction, but its still pause for thought when presented with info about how recession reduces death. Which presumably means that increased economic activity means more death. Pollution is one reason, there are others. We didnt really need a pandemic to tell us that the order of things and the promoted priorities suck. But the pandemic certainly brings such things into focus. Shining a light on things that were already there and were obvious if people cared to deal with them. How many times have I had cause to say that in this pandemic so far? Plenty.

 

[Elpenor]

My observation is that the "it's only old people who die from it" attitude really means "I don't care as long as no-one who I care about is affected"

 

[8ball]

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.

Do you have a source for this?
Not because I want to quibble, but in case I want to quote it at any point.

(I think once QE was factored in the total cost of bailing out the bankers wound up around three quarters of a trillion)

 

[8ball]

& this is pretty old, a bit cheesy, and has probably been posted before, but still applies.

View attachment 244509

I guess the converse of this statement is that the busy streets I’ve seen recently could be indicative of a lack of love.

Hey, at least those suicides and those suffering from DV can marvel at the love.

 

[planetgeli]

Do you have a source for this?
Not because I want to quibble, but in case I want to quote it at any point.

(I think once QE was factored in the total cost of bailing out the bankers wound up around three quarters of a trillion)

What is the cost of COVID-19 in the UK?

The total financial cost of COVID-19 won’t be known until after the crisis is over - but we can look into the available data and piece something together

www.openaccessgovernment.org

 

[8ball]

What is the cost of COVID-19 in the UK?

The total financial cost of COVID-19 won’t be known until after the crisis is over - but we can look into the available data and piece something together

www.openaccessgovernment.org

Cheers

 

[trabuquera]

Just wanted to pick away at this a bit:

And the issue is the NHS is basically just focusing on covid, with huge collateral damage to those waiting for endlessly delayed elective treatment...

But no not really. Yes there is huge collateral damage to other services - but the NHS is not at all 'just focusing' on Covid, but rather, trying to keep up with an endless series of things to juggle in the air while dealing with Covid. Yes it's prioritising Covid - and arguably too extremely - but it has not at all just stopped other things. (I'm all too aware of the cases of serious, life-threatening diseases like i.e. cancer having the ideal or 'normal routine' treatments delayed or suspended altogether - and I don't discount it.) But honestly, to me, it's kind of miraculous that at a very basic level the NHS is still holding the line on minimum treatments (mostly) for other serious, life-threatening stuff and emergencies. A&Es are having a horrendous time but road accident victims are still getting saved. Transplants and chemo are still going on (for most, I accept not all.). Older people are still getting their flu jabs as well as the lucky few who've got the Covid vaccine so far. GP surgeries are still seeing people. The knock-on effects of Covid-fighting measures are really serious and really negative but plenty of other services/campaigns are still there. I think sometimes the exaggeration that 'anything that's not Covid is cancelled' is used as a strawman to argue against sensible - if extremely anguishing - triage. Triage is horrible. But that's a mismanaged pandemic for you. Take some tough, unpopular repressive decisions early on and a country doesn't have to do as much triage-ing later.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Just wanted to pick away at this a bit:


But no not really. Yes there is huge collateral damage to other services - but the NHS is not at all 'just focusing' on Covid, but rather, trying to keep up with an endless series of things to juggle in the air while dealing with Covid. Yes it's prioritising Covid - and arguably too extremely - but it has not at all just stopped other things. (I'm all too aware of the cases of serious, life-threatening diseases like i.e. cancer having the ideal or 'normal routine' treatments delayed or suspended altogether - and I don't discount it.) But honestly, to me, it's kind of miraculous that at a very basic level the NHS is still holding the line on minimum treatments (mostly) for other serious, life-threatening stuff and emergencies. A&Es are having a horrendous time but road accident victims are still getting saved. Transplants and chemo are still going on (for most, I accept not all.). Older people are still getting their flu jabs as well as the lucky few who've got the Covid vaccine so far. GP surgeries are still seeing people. The knock-on effects of Covid-fighting measures are really serious and really negative but plenty of other services/campaigns are still there. I think sometimes the exaggeration that 'anything that's not Covid is cancelled' is used as a strawman to argue against sensible - if extremely anguishing - triage. Triage is horrible. But that's a mismanaged pandemic for you. Take some tough, unpopular repressive decisions early on and a country doesn't have to do as much triage-ing later.

Some things are going ahead, that's true, but a large number of people are experiencing massive delays for treatment. Delays that can have serious adverse consequences. The hospitals round here seem to have abandoned any elective procedures due to the impact of covid.

Year-long waits for surgery at highest level since 2008, says NHS England

In September, 139,545 people had been waiting more than a year for an operation

www.theguardian.com