The Red Bladder wrote:We do not know how many of those who have died would have died anyway – possibly a bit later – from underlying conditions (“comorbidities”, in doctor-speak).
We're all going to die anyway... But most of us would prefer not to die needlessly early through unnecessary exposure to a virus spread by the thoughtless or uncaring actions of our neighbours, and the refusal of medical care from a health service we've all paid for!
And be in no mistake, if the virus is allowed to run free hospitals will be totally swamped within weeks and will have no option but to refuse treatment to tens or even hundreds of thousands.
This 'is the treatment worse than the disease?' questioning is all well and good for those who believe they are safe. But what does it say of a society that's considering consigning its weaker members to unnecessary early death, just for the sake of their own convenience and wealth? It's certainly not civilisation in the real sense of the word.
And what government would ever contemplate letting this virus run unchecked anyway, when doing so surely means mass graves and refrigerated lorries crawling around the suburbs like dustbin vans collecting the dead? I wouldn't be surprised if, in some countries, we even start seeing bodies piling up in the streets quite soon! What's the public reaction going to be to scenes like that?
As I said before, the Government is between a very big rock, and a very hard place. If it lets the virus run its course economic damage might be minimised, but the support of the electorate (and possibly the respect of other countries) will be lost. On the other hand, if they enforce social isolation to prevent the spread of the virus they save lives and the NHS, but risk losing support of the electorate and wrecking the economy... Who'd be a politician?
It is dangerous for those with serious existing medical conditions, especially if they are old. For others, the symptoms are mild in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Tell that to the families of the growing number of previously perfectlynhealthy doctors and nurses who have succumbed... Or the growing number of deaths of younger people with no comorbidities at all. Local Birmingham news interviewed an ICU doctor who said the majority of people under his care was under 50 and fit...
The much-publicised deaths of fit young people are tragic but they are outliers.
...so are you really suggesting these 'outliers' actually don't matter and we shouldn't bother to provide medical care to help them recover?
How far would this policy extend? Would this kind of thinking also apply to caring for the disabled? How about anyone who contracts an inconvenient disease, or injury? Should we stop treating cancer sufferers?
Who decides who is worth medical assistance and who isn't?
You? The government? An economist? Should you have to prove your economic value in order to be granted treatment? (Isn't that kind of the way the US healthcare system currently works?)
That seems a very greasy road you're starting down...
We have subjected most of the population, young or old, vulnerable or fit, to house imprisonment for an indefinite period.
Indefinite, but not endless, and not without good scientific reason or expected beneficial results.
We have set about abolishing human sociability in ways that lead to unimaginable distress.
I think the stress of losing a family member from this virus, isolated from family and friends in their final hours in hospital, must lead to unimaginable stress too!
These things represent an interference with our lives and our personal autonomy that is intolerable in a free society. To say that they are necessary for larger social ends, however valuable those ends may be, is to treat human beings as objects, mere instruments of policy.
So how would those suffering with the virus be treated, under your approach, when being denied treatment, which is the inevitable outcome of your approach? Wouldn't they then become mere objects, or instruments of policy?
Can you really not appreciate the difference between some healthy people being asked to stay indoors for a short while, and some poorly people being told to hurry up and die?
And that is before we even get to the economic impact.
We've had economic set backs before. We've survived and recovered. And we could even use this opportunity to burn all the economists and bankers and come up with new, less materialistic ways of living and thriving that might even work far better with the planet!
I'll stop there to keep my blood pressure in check..... :madas: