Coronavirus Craziness

[Lacewing]

blah blah blah

Does it give you some weird pleasure to see the title remain changed to your lame topic, simply because people are replying and they don't think about changing it?

[commonsense]

Is this really about saving people, or irrational gerontophillia? If not about the latter, then why the constant harping about 'protecting the elderly'? I mean, it's not as if the elderly die all the time or anything Is it because the elderly control much of the planet's wealth and media? Think Rupert Murdoch.
I'm not even necessarily against the measures taken, I'm just trying to make sense of it, and wondering what would have happened if young children and babies were the primary victims. I have a feeling that yes, schools and pre-schools would have been closed and CHILDREN told to stay home, but would the entire planet have shut down?
I know there are a lot of olds on this forum (being no spring chicken myself). What do YOU think? Hmm?

Spoiler alert: depending on where the line is drawn, I am either mature or superannuated.

I already know that you’ll disagree with me, but that’s what makes the Forum interesting.

I believe that the septa-, octa- and nonagenarians have enough disposable income that they are needed as consumers.

Of course, without the senescents themselves, their money would still be injected into the global economy by their heirs. And their income, such as it is, comes from the labors of the youth who remain active in the workforce.

So, perhaps the senile are not necessary to the world’s economy at all, but rather they are a drain on the wealth of others.

Yet I would argue that if society breaks the implicit promise of longevity—that humans will live into their 100s as healthy and active people—to our current superannuateds, then what can Gen-Xers and Millennials expect for their retirement years?

Furthermore, I don’t think we would ever consider throwing our children and adolescents, our future, under the bus. They, too, are a drain on society’s wealth, and they have no disposable income other than what is allowed to them by their parents.

For the preceding reasons, I think society should value its senior citizens. Therefore, we should do what we can to protect our elders from Covid 19.

But is it humane to save seniors at the expense of the world economy and the effect of a collapsed economy on our comparatively younger workers and spouses/partners and offspring?

I say yes, for 2 reasons. The virus also sickens and kills (though in lesser degree) humans of young ages. Devastation of the global economy will be disastrous for decades, however death’s disaster persists forever.

[henry quirk]

Reality is: the subject field is open. That others choose not to use it as a tool it is is also not my problem.

Lobby the forum mods/owner to close the subject field, if it worries you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Is this really about saving people, or irrational gerontophillia? If not about the latter, then why the constant harping about 'protecting the elderly'? I mean, it's not as if the elderly die all the time or anything Is it because the elderly control much of the planet's wealth and media? Think Rupert Murdoch.
I'm not even necessarily against the measures taken, I'm just trying to make sense of it, and wondering what would have happened if young children and babies were the primary victims. I have a feeling that yes, schools and pre-schools would have been closed and CHILDREN told to stay home, but would the entire planet have shut down?
I know there are a lot of olds on this forum (being no spring chicken myself). What do YOU think? Hmm?

Spoiler alert: depending on where the line is drawn, I am either mature or superannuated.

I already know that you’ll disagree with me, but that’s what makes the Forum interesting.

I believe that the septa-, octa- and nonagenarians have enough disposable income that they are needed as consumers.

Of course, without the senescents themselves, their money would still be injected into the global economy by their heirs. And their income, such as it is, comes from the labors of the youth who remain active in the workforce.

So, perhaps the senile are not necessary to the world’s economy at all, but rather they are a drain on the wealth of others.

Yet I would argue that if society breaks the implicit promise of longevity—that humans will live into their 100s as healthy and active people—to our current superannuateds, then what can Gen-Xers and Millennials expect for their retirement years?

Furthermore, I don’t think we would ever consider throwing our children and adolescents, our future, under the bus. They, too, are a drain on society’s wealth, and they have no disposable income other than what is allowed to them by their parents.

For the preceding reasons, I think society should value its senior citizens. Therefore, we should do what we can to protect our elders from Covid 19.

But is it humane to save seniors at the expense of the world economy and the effect of a collapsed economy on our comparatively younger workers and spouses/partners and offspring?

I say yes, for 2 reasons. The virus also sickens and kills (though in lesser degree) humans of young ages. Devastation of the global economy will be disastrous for decades, however death’s disaster persists forever.

The effect of this virus on young people is less than seasonal flu. And yes, I actually 'do' think that children would be 'thrown under the bus' for precisely the reasons that you point out--much power and wealth is in the hands of the old, and it's generally the kind of wealth that isn't shared around. The vast majority of the elderly are a burden on young people. Here, 75% of the welfare budget goes on the old age pension--yet some of the worst offenders complaining about 'lazy beneficiaries' are the old. And who ordained that young people have to care about the elderly?
I saw a couple of children DARING to play at a deserted playground yesterday. A couple of nasty hags were out walking and yelled at them to get off it. Fuck them.

[commonsense]

Is this really about saving people, or irrational gerontophillia? If not about the latter, then why the constant harping about 'protecting the elderly'? I mean, it's not as if the elderly die all the time or anything Is it because the elderly control much of the planet's wealth and media? Think Rupert Murdoch.
I'm not even necessarily against the measures taken, I'm just trying to make sense of it, and wondering what would have happened if young children and babies were the primary victims. I have a feeling that yes, schools and pre-schools would have been closed and CHILDREN told to stay home, but would the entire planet have shut down?
I know there are a lot of olds on this forum (being no spring chicken myself). What do YOU think? Hmm?

Spoiler alert: depending on where the line is drawn, I am either mature or superannuated.

I already know that you’ll disagree with me, but that’s what makes the Forum interesting.

I believe that the septa-, octa- and nonagenarians have enough disposable income that they are needed as consumers.

Of course, without the senescents themselves, their money would still be injected into the global economy by their heirs. And their income, such as it is, comes from the labors of the youth who remain active in the workforce.

So, perhaps the senile are not necessary to the world’s economy at all, but rather they are a drain on the wealth of others.

Yet I would argue that if society breaks the implicit promise of longevity—that humans will live into their 100s as healthy and active people—to our current superannuateds, then what can Gen-Xers and Millennials expect for their retirement years?

Furthermore, I don’t think we would ever consider throwing our children and adolescents, our future, under the bus. They, too, are a drain on society’s wealth, and they have no disposable income other than what is allowed to them by their parents.

For the preceding reasons, I think society should value its senior citizens. Therefore, we should do what we can to protect our elders from Covid 19.

But is it humane to save seniors at the expense of the world economy and the effect of a collapsed economy on our comparatively younger workers and spouses/partners and offspring?

I say yes, for 2 reasons. The virus also sickens and kills (though in lesser degree) humans of young ages. Devastation of the global economy will be disastrous for decades, however death’s disaster persists forever.

The effect of this virus on young people is less than seasonal flu. And yes, I actually 'do' think that children would be 'thrown under the bus' for precisely the reasons that you point out--much power and wealth is in the hands of the old, and it's generally the kind of wealth that isn't shared around. The vast majority of the elderly are a burden on young people. Here, 75% of the welfare budget goes on the old age pension--yet some of the worst offenders complaining about 'lazy beneficiaries' are the old. And who ordained that young people have to care about the elderly?
I saw a couple of children DARING to play at a deserted playground yesterday. A couple of nasty hags were out walking and yelled at them to get off it. Fuck them.

Well said. I would only suggest that the wealth of retirees is actually spread around, in as much as once money is spent (on anything) it is indeed being spread.

[Lacewing]

Reality is: the subject field is open. That others choose not to use it as a tool it is is also not my problem.

There have been others who also asked you to stop screwing it up. Meanwhile, you frequently boast how you don't like people messing with anything that affects you, but you think nothing of disrupting something that everyone uses just because YOU like to see your comments repeated over and over as if they are so wise or clever and worth the repetition.

[henry quirk]

.

[Lacewing]

Lace, I don't care.

That's what I said.

[attofishpi]

.

Finally, I agree with you.

[Lacewing]

Lace, I don't care.

Finally, I agree with you.

You agree that Henry doesn't care?

Nobody cares.

[Arising_uk]

Take it up with John Hopkins: it's their comparison, not mine.

But you are the one using them to promote the idea that there is an over-reaction?

Is this John Hopkins against the measures?

Do they suggest doing nothing?

[Sculptor]

I believe that the septa-, octa- and nonagenarians have enough disposable income that they are needed as consumers.

This is utterly irrelevant.
When they die their wealth does not disappear, it goes to their younger relative who are more likely to spend it unleashing stimulus.

[Arising_uk]

I'm not even necessarily against the measures taken, I'm just trying to make sense of it, and wondering what would have happened if young children and babies were the primary victims. I have a feeling that yes, schools and pre-schools would have been closed and CHILDREN told to stay home, but would the entire planet have shut down?
I know there are a lot of olds on this forum (being no spring chicken myself). What do YOU think? Hmm?

I think the response would be pretty much the same if the demographic were reversed as the measures are those recommended for a pandemic.

I agree that many of the aged who have died would have probably died within a year or two anyway but the thing about overloading the health service over here is not really about the deaths but just about the amount of seriously ill who would need to be treated and that covers a large span of the population as whilst it is true that many will experience mild symptoms and many more will not die from catching it its becoming clear that it is a very nasty respiratory illness and many will need hospitalization. If we left it to run it's course I think the numbers would be too much for any health system.

[henry quirk]

But you are the one using them to promote the idea that there is an over-reaction?

Yep.


Is this John Hopkins against the measures?

I have no clue what the institutional position is. Doctors associated with JH have varying views, some apocalyptic (the conventional), some more moderate (the radical, like me).


Do they suggest doing nothing?

Institutionally, I have no clue what JH recommends; no individual doc, from apocalyptic to moderate, is recommendin' doin' nuthin'.

I'm not either.

As my sig line over in the Cellar forum sez, as I've said a couple or three times here...

Wash your hands, don't touch your pretty face, don't be so touchy-feely, consult your doc if you're worried, don't look to employees (government) for solutions, don't listen to talkin' heads (journalists), and calm down.

Further: don't close down a nation and an economy because of a hot spot; address the hot spot.

I have other advise, but mostly nobody gives a crap. Far more satisfyin' (and easier) for most folks to go into disaster mode than be reasonable, so I'll (mostly) just post the numbers. You all can do with 'em as you see fit.

[attofishpi]

Wash your hands, don't touch your pretty face, don't be so touchy-feely, consult your doc if you're worried,

...hang on.

Me and my ugly girlfriend are wondering, and since....we are so fucking ugly..

Is it OK if we touch each other's face, even though they are so deformed?

Indeed.

Can we be all - touchy-feely - so long as we are not touching an American?