Question for Dev etc. then, same sort of one asked of MM repeatedly because he's expressing his view. Lockdown is prioritising treatment of one illness amongst many that kill people. Why is the person with covid worth more than the cancer patient whose op is cancelled etc.?
There was an article the other day about implications for global TB deaths because of how far back the covid efforts have set that field back. (1.6m I think was the number the lady was estimating) Why is okay to let those people die to save someone from covid? Is it because a lot of them will be in poorer countries so that's all okay then?
The linear arguments that are used on here to attack (not debate because there's precious little of that) alternative views are thoroughly depressing. Suggest the actions to contain covid are causing a lot of harm and maybe enough harm that the approach needs to be looked at again and you're callous and putting the economy before people's lives. Advocate an action that will as a consequence kill people (or allow them to die to be less emotive) and you're correct and a moral person <blink>
Out of curiosity in the event of a serious explosion affecting hundreds or thousands of people how do medics decide who to treat. Do they look at someone with a serious leg wound that they can definitely save the same as they do someone with multiple injuries that would take many medics to work on for a slim chance of saving them (and that they know will mean others die that they would have saved whilst working on this person) Or do they have to make a (cr*ppy) call and save the injured who would definitely survive with treatment?
When looking at operations do they say have it because we know you'll die without it or do they take in to account the harm that having the op may cause versus the benefits? You know, kind of like the harm an unspecific society wide lockdown will cause versus the harm it saves? How do you balance the mental health issues (and deaths) isolation will cause versus more people getting out and exercising due to the lockdown. How many are doing that versus those that are just sat around doing eff all and becoming a future heart attack or cancer victim as a result? How many lives are being saved due to a reduction in pollution versus deaths caused due to fear of visiting medical establishments,or a funnelling of resources and research away from a different medical field? Any clear answers on that or just opinions?
It's not heresy or an automatic sign of a callous, uncaring person to look at things from a different point of view. Doesn't necessarily make it right of course, any more than the opposing view does.
Same thing I've said before I know and presumably won't mean anything now either. Must be nice to have that certainty and grasp of an extremely complicated and evolving situation to know so unequivocally what the best course of action is.
Originally Posted by: Hippydave