(10-13-2020, 05:21 PM)Protheroe Wrote:(10-13-2020, 03:33 PM)Brentbaggie Wrote:(10-13-2020, 12:34 PM)Protheroe Wrote: I listened to Charles Walker on Radio 4 yesterday and he pretty much sums up where I'm at (and where I've been since March)
"We just can’t save every life, because the cost to the living is too high.”
“The pandemic is not rampant, this is an illness that very sadly really afflicts the elderly and those with underlying health conditions."
“Our focus should be on protecting them, not limiting the life chances of young people and people of middle age who are responsible for running and owning businesses.”
“First world public services do require a first world economy"
“It does seem the government, for the best of reasons, but mistaken reasons, is trying to abolish death. You can’t abolish death. The fact is people in their 80s and 90s die.”
"The only guarantee anyone has when they're born is that at some stage in your 80s or 90s you are going to die”.
“My real concern is these decisions are mostly being made by the middle aged and well-heeled, paid out of the public purse, so they’re not really going to bear the consequences off these decisions.”
Many of you know I lost both my parents to late diagnosed cancer. Cancer Research today spells out that 3 million people have missed out on cancer screening tests since March due to our preoccuptaions with Covid. It makes me want to scream
Proth, I sympathise with you and quite understand your anger. I've got a 12 month post cancer op scan tomorrow that I should have had 7 weeks ago - and I think I'm very fortunate, at least I hope I will be. Losing both parents in the way you did is terrible and difficult to bear.
My only question is how do politicians square the circle of allowing older and "unlucky" victims succumbing to Covid deaths, while at the same time ensuring that hospitals do not have to admit rising numbers with Covid who will need intensive care? I get that you think the numbers are misleading - and perhaps they are - but numbers on ventilators are going up. Do you think this will cease or do you think that without some kind of regulation these numbers will eventually decrease? What system of dealing with flare-ups would you instigate, if any?
I think, and this seems to be the concern of politicians and SAGE, that they are trying to minimise deaths - they are inevitable - but in the short term, in the hope that while alternative long-term damage will undoubtedly result, this will be mitigated by the arrival of vaccine at some point within the next 6-9 months. If it doesn't they will have gambled and lost. If it does, and is safe, then it seems to me that the terrible shock of what would be 18 months of this nightmare/big damage to the economy/longer-term health issues, is a lesser evil than the alternative, a large number of deaths in the here and now, allied to long-term Covid illnesses in a fair number of other people.
What do you think?
Firstly, fingers crossed for tomorrow pal.
Every decision you make in life is based on the concept of opportunity costs. The opportunity costs in this situation are complex:
Some degree of a functioning economy / A healthcare system that can deliver cancer & acute care / A healthcare system that doesn't collapse under the weight of Covid / Minimisation of deaths
To have the latter three you need the former one. A strategy of containment until a vaccine is found is NOT a strategy. We may never have a vaccine, we cannot live in a permanent bankrupt economic and general healthcare twilight zone. If the cost of that is more deaths of those in their 80s and 90s then, and I'm going to say it - is a price worth paying to save younger lives. As it is the lives of those in their 80s and 90s are miserable enough without family or community contact. I genuinely believe my mum was lucky to die when she did.
We have the barely used Nightingale Hospitals for Covid sufferers.
Which brings me back to the point I've made for months on here - if there is a total lockdown it must be amongst those most at risk. The average age of a Covid death in the UK is still over 80 - this is not a disease that affects the vast majority of sufferers to any great degree.
Keir Starmer has tonight come out as the cheerleader for "the middle aged and well-heeled, paid out of the public purse" demanding restrictions on the rest of us. I was hoping he'd do something to make me loath him and he's managed it, bravo Keir.
Even if you think the deaths are a price worth paying, before they die they will require hospital treatment, unless of course you are suggesting 111 asks if they are in a risk group and just say tough - the more in hospital the less resource for other medical requirements.
The Nightingales turned away patients because to man them requires staff to be taken from other hospitals.
The whole point is that the NHS resources can only cope with a certain level of patients, so if you have more older or even younger at risk patients in hospital then that resource will be even less available for other medical requirements