Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

People do not live forever


sarahbell
 Share

Recommended Posts

same age group as die mostly during a normal flu season. And we do not lock down for that.

The old and infirm die.

That's sad. But not a tragedy. They have lived a long life, and taking into account the average life expectancy, they've actually done really well. 

 

There are people who are morally outraged that it is not considered a sin for very old people to die.

 

image.thumb.png.3d7c7203dbfeee96e91627c46b5aeac9.png

May be an image of 1 person and text

  • Agree 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By saying this he has signalled that policy has been made knowing a certain group "will die". There are some ethical issues with this, where as if age was not considered when enacting the policy, it would be fine. :P

I agree with the practicality of it and would point out that life expectancy in some parts of the UK is lower, so what is the fuss about. I was all for the initial policy of 'let it rip' back in March 2020 until they U-turned. Free for all, let the weak suffer what they must, the strong do what they can, no one is favoured over the other.

But, as mentioned, now we must consider the slippery slope. It seems policy is being made because only a specific group of people "will die" as a consequence - this is dangerous ground. Hence the outrage, or perhaps I am reading too much into it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big question I have is why was he only working that out in the Autumn? I was seeing similar stats for Italy in March last year. Why was he only bothering his arse to find those figures in the Autumn? 

Despite having those figures, he still went ahead with the lockdown. It is quite clear that Boris isn't any kind of a leader.

It also seems clear who was driving the lockdown agenda. Cummings the authoritarian, untrustworthy reptile. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rookie said:

By saying this he has signalled that policy has been made knowing a certain group "will die". There are some ethical issues with this, where as if age was not considered when enacting the policy, it would be fine. :P

I agree with the practicality of it and would point out that life expectancy in some parts of the UK is lower, so what is the fuss about. I was all for the initial policy of 'let it rip' back in March 2020 until they U-turned. Free for all, let the weak suffer what they must, the strong do what they can, no one is favoured over the other.

But, as mentioned, now we must consider the slippery slope. It seems policy is being made because only a specific group of people "will die" as a consequence - this is dangerous ground. Hence the outrage, or perhaps I am reading too much into it. 

 

If it was any other group of people:
kids, teens, young adults, working people,

then I'd say yes you have a point.

But you can not make old people live forever. We all die.
If you get to 81 and then die of a cold, should every child in the country have been denied an education in order to enable you to live a bit longer?
If you get to 81 and then die of a cold, should every teenager in the country have been denied an education in order to enable you to live a bit longer?

If you get to 81 and then die of a cold, should every young adult in the country have been denied an education/starting work/socialising in order to enable you to live a bit longer?

 

If you get to 81 and then die of a cold, should every working adult in the country have been denied a chance to earn a living in order to enable you to live a bit longer?

 

If you think we should protect old people at all costs then we should lock down during flu season every year too.

 

  • Agree 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

You don't want a small percentage 83 year olds missing 83 and 84, so you remove the freedom of every 16 year old for two years. Is that a fair trade?

Maybe I'm biased but I think the years of one's youth are valuable and nobody is acknowledging what the young have sacfriced in their own lives over the last 18 months for the benefit of the old.

Boris acknowledged it yesterday.

Before kicking them in the face, again.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, eight said:

Boris acknowledged it yesterday.

Before kicking them in the face, again.

The outrage I've seen on Fb about his comment will be why he's backtracked. Apparently there are a lot of people who think Granny needs to live forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, JoeDavola said:

You don't want a small percentage 83 year olds missing 83 and 84, so you remove the freedom of every 16 year old for two years. Is that a fair trade?

Maybe I'm biased but I think the years of one's youth are valuable and nobody is acknowledging what the young have sacfriced in their own lives over the last 18 months for the benefit of the old.

Missing what?

Few countdowns, some Werthurs toffees and maybe trip to the shops.

Tied in wit hteh social care issue, where they are lookign to heap more taxes on youbng people to pay for the OAPs.

They need to man up, stop putting OAPs in expensive hospitals and move them the low cost care homes.

Then they need to start an assessment where they decide whether to continue care.

The OAPs in social are not the old people you see out n about. They are mainly cabbages.

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

The outrage I've seen on Fb about his comment will be why he's backtracked. Apparently there are a lot of people who think Granny needs to live forever.

Not anyone whos gone thru it once.

 

 

  • Agree 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he didn't really say that (or, not in the context suggested).

What he said was more like 'but it is the over 80's who'll die"... therefore that's where we should put our protective efforts (re lockdowns)

It wasn't 'it is the over 80's that'll die' therefore we shouldn't worry about covid and should just let it rip.

The stupid thing is, before the lockdown SAGE meeting (in mid March) pretty much all the scientists agreed that the right approach would be to restrict the movements of the vulnerable (80+), have those testing positive self-isolating and let everyone else get on with life.

The reason for the change in policy in mid March is really unclear -- but I doubt they'll release the minutes from those crucial meetings ever (I'm sure they won't be declassified at the 25 year point).

  • Agree 7
  • Informative 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Austin Allegro
1 hour ago, JoeDavola said:

You don't want a small percentage 83 year olds missing 83 and 84, so you remove the freedom of every 16 year old for two years. Is that a fair trade?

Maybe I'm biased but I think the years of one's youth are valuable and nobody is acknowledging what the young have sacfriced in their own lives over the last 18 months for the benefit of the old.

I don't think there is any example in history of the young being sacrificed for the old. It's always the other way round.

Yes, the men killed in wars are usually young, but they are adults, not children.

The damage done to children has been shocking, and now they want to go even further and forceably inject them with an untested vaccine.

I always believed that Satan was a metaphor for evil rather than an objectively real being. Now I'm not so sure. If he's only a metaphor he's a bloody powerful one.

  • Agree 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hail the Tripod
1 hour ago, JoeDavola said:

You don't want a small percentage 83 year olds missing 83 and 84, so you remove the freedom of every 16 year old for two years. Is that a fair trade?

Maybe I'm biased but I think the years of one's youth are valuable and nobody is acknowledging what the young have sacfriced in their own lives over the last 18 months for the benefit of the old.

The idea of some quid pro quo balancing presupposes that lockdowns achieved something with respect to either “flattening the curve” or “protecting the vulnerable”. I don’t think (in hindsight) there is ANY evidence to support either contention.

While it did seem reasonable to assume that lockdowns, masks and social distancing would have more effect than they did, we have to push back on this idea that they achieved anything worthwhile at all. They didn’t.  The lockdowns served zero medical benefit. The vulnerable were exposed to SARS-Cov2 in their fucking millions.

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, sarahbell said:

 

If it was any other group of people:
kids, teens, young adults, working people,

then I'd say yes you have a point.

But you can not make old people live forever. We all die.
If you get to 81 and then die of a cold, should every child in the country have been denied an education in order to enable you to live a bit longer?
If you get to 81 and then die of a cold, should every teenager in the country have been denied an education in order to enable you to live a bit longer?

If you get to 81 and then die of a cold, should every young adult in the country have been denied an education/starting work/socialising in order to enable you to live a bit longer?

 

If you get to 81 and then die of a cold, should every working adult in the country have been denied a chance to earn a living in order to enable you to live a bit longer?

 

If you think we should protect old people at all costs then we should lock down during flu season every year too.

 

I am sure that government will have conversations and make policy based around "only x group will die/life ruined if we do this", it happens all the time, I just find it disturbing that it is now so open.

We are in a place where the prime minister is openly saying "let’s do this because only the old will die". If the public accepts this then tomorrow government can try pushing through other policies based on "only x group die if we do this, an acceptable cost". This is my only problem with it. 

"Lets open up because the vulnerable are all vaccinated", how can anyone argue?

We should never have locked down in the first place in my view, but here we are, in totalitarian land with psycho's talking about killing off part of the population for the greater good.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rookie said:

I am sure that government will have conversations and make policy based around "only x group will die/life ruined if we do this", it happens all the time, I just find it disturbing that it is now so open.

 

We are in a place where the prime minister is openly saying "let’s do this because only the old will die". If the public accepts this then tomorrow government can try pushing through other policies based on "only x group die if we do this, an acceptable cost". This is my only problem with it. 

 

"Lets open up because the vulnerable are all vaccinated", how can anyone argue?

We should never have locked down in the first place in my view, but here we are, in totalitarian land with psycho's talking about killing off part of the population for the greater good.

 

 

Flu each year will take some old people.

We do not lock down for it.

Some loss of old people dying from flu is a price most people would pay to continue living a normal life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

Flu each year will take some old people.

We do not lock down for it.

Some loss of old people dying from flu is a price most people would pay to continue living a normal life.

 

Sacrifice one group today and tomorrow you are fair game. It seems like a small point but precendent is a powerful thing.

Otherwise 100% agree we should not lock down. Never should have locked down. Now the weak are vaccinated there is no reason to stay locked down. Its no different to flu now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, dgul said:

What he said was more like 'but it is the over 80's who'll die"... therefore that's where we should put our protective efforts (re lockdowns)

Exactly, and similar for a lot of the other "explosive" exposés.  They state something and then proffer a framing.  But lose me on the framing as it's not the most likely.  They really are not very good or are desparate.  But this has been the general covid theme.  People seen unable to handle step two sntd outsource it to others who do not have their best interests at heart.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Austin Allegro said:

The damage done to children has been shocking, and now they want to go even further and forceably inject them with an untested vaccine.

Indeed, although I'm now realising the damage done to children predates covid.  This is just an escalation on a well worn path.  I would be home schooling in some form by now.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

Flu each year will take some old people.

We do not lock down for it.

Some loss of old people dying from flu is a price most people would pay to continue living a normal life.

 

Maybe we will start soon though  if it suits their agenda.  Anyway, there is no flu, just a pandemic of horrific covid variants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rookie said:

Sacrifice one group today and tomorrow you are fair game. It seems like a small point but precendent is a powerful thing.

But nobody was suggesting they be sacrificed. It was an observation that disease affects the old disproportionally. This is nature. It's what it does. Same as flu etc. To point this out is neutral. To take extreme counter measures to this that disproportionally affect the majority of younger people in society who are not at risk is the intentional sacrificing bit. And that is what they have done. As mentioned, old people could have been isolated for their own safety. But boo hoo, that would have been so unfair! So they punished everybody instead (which I happen to think was the intention all along, but that's irrelevant here).

  • Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rookie said:

Sacrifice one group today and tomorrow you are fair game. It seems like a small point but precendent is a powerful thing.

Otherwise 100% agree we should not lock down. Never should have locked down. Now the weak are vaccinated there is no reason to stay locked down. Its no different to flu now.

We don't lock down for flu. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/07/2021 at 14:45, sarahbell said:

The outrage I've seen on Fb about his comment will be why he's backtracked. Apparently there are a lot of people who think Granny needs to live forever.

Granny didn't give a fuck in 1968 when the more virulant Hong Kong flu took 30,000. There weren't that many elderly Grannies around to kill nor were we connected enough for the virus to spread so fast.

Where have all the flowers gone was the issue of the day, the morgues filled with Victorian born grannies was incidental. Life is for the young to live 1968 style, not protection of geriatrics

 

TELEMMGLPICT000126968463_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqeK8ehqBZJSTiVTgumtathbH8AD1LYTdJsoz8pklmEgw.thumb.jpeg.1e8b92f69a36f81fcf6b8e88740791cb.jpeg

 

Edited by crashmonitor
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...