so basically we're fucked with covid, no way around it

fucked if we do restrictions (all the collateral damage)
fucked if we don't (covid will kill and injure many people)

so which is the lesser evil? — dazed

There's no upside to a deadly pandemic, for sure. I think my government ought to have shut down unnecessary national and international travel, locked down until the transmission rate was small, and continued to block travel or quarantine travellers to and from countries that were not tackling the pandemic.

The argument against these was capitalism. Shutting down travel would have shut down some airlines. Some airlines folded anyway because of how protracted the pandemic response was. High street stores and hospitality businesses would have folded because people wouldn't be shopping and socialising. They folded anyway because of how protracted the pandemic response was. Not everyone would have been able to run their businesses because schools -- read: state babysitters -- were closed. Now almost a year later people are still unable to run their businesses because their businesses folded. Children won't have gotten an education for six months. Children will have had no education to speak of for 18, whereas keeping the schools closed would have given them the opportunity to adapt to purely online methods instead of being in a constant state of emergency and uncertainty.

The Covid response has been the apotheosis of capitalism in its starkest inappropriateness: short-term answers to long-term problems; the primacy of the business over the citizen; the disregard for anyone, child or care home resident, who isn't spending.

There's no good pandemic outcome, but there are some truly awful ones and we've ticked all those boxes.

I mean really if you live to 80, you've had a good run, is it really worth all the collateral damage to society to preserve the lives of those over 80 whose quality of life is significantly diminished? — dazed

Remnants of theism are worth holding on to, if the alternative is what amounts to mass euthenasia. ‘I mean, what’s the problem with letting go of a few old people?’ There are many threats facing humanity which could be solved by the death of a few billion people, if we went down that road. So I think the concept of the sanctity of human life is one of the important legacies of Christianity, not an obstacle to be shoved aside.

Here in Australia, the stats are Cases 28,708, Recovered 25,913, Deaths 909. Obviously Australia has a small population compared to the USA but were deaths here proportional, we would have expected about 4,000 deaths. Early estimates were in excess of 100,000 deaths. There has been an economic cost in terms of loss of jobs, economic contraction and damage to important industries including tourism and entertainment. However Australia didn’t fall into recession and the prospects for recovery in 21-22 are quite good. Meaning, it is possible to contain this disease if the effort is lead by science and society complies with the requirements - both of which characterised the Australian response.

The US obviously made a complete disaster of its COVID response and accordingly enormous numbers of people died, not all of them old and sick by a long stretch. This is partially because of the utterly ham-fisted and criminally incompetent leadership of Trump (‘can we inject disinfectant’) and partially because of the strong anti-science and libertarian individualism in the culture. Neither of which could be addressed by the means the OP suggests.

The whole argument is a nasty red herring.

Here in Australia, the stats are Cases 28,708, Recovered 25,913, Deaths 909. Obviously Australia has a small population compared to the USA but were deaths here proportional, we would have expected about 4,000 deaths. — Wayfarer

Tbf you effectively live on a donut, that's got to help. :P

Well, there's that, but it's still been a hugely successful campaign. Both my Christmas and New Years' plans were torpedoed by the December outbreak in my vicinity, but the response was universal commitment to wearing masks, being tested, and registering every place you visit with a government app. And, it worked. It's the opposite of what happened in a lot of places. (That said, the Australian Open Tennis is going ahead, which a lot of people are questioning, we're terrified of the UK Variant escaping the bottle.)

Well, there's that, but it's still been a hugely successful campaign. Both my Christmas and New Years' plans were torpedoed by the December outbreak in my vicinity, but the response was universal commitment to wearing masks, being tested, and registering every place you visit with a government app. And, it worked. It's the opposite of what happened in a lot of places. (That said, the Australian Open Tennis is going ahead, which a lot of people are questioning, we're terrified of the UK Variant escaping the bottle.) — Wayfarer

Of course. You guys tend to do things right. We don't, which is why there's something called "the UK Variant" :cry:

Oh, I don't think the UK can be held responsible for the emergence of that mutant strain, but it's fairly clear that their response was generally pretty sub-par anyway and that just poured fuel on the fire.

(I should own up, also, that where I live is a large house on a large block with a pool, immediately adjacent to a private gym, sports oval, and local shops, so being 'stuck at home' is barely a hardship in my case.)

Theism can be interpreted broadly, just as atheism or scientism can. If you had said Christianity, your argument would be stronger, since there's more content which can be used to construct a meaningful claim about how this particular religion has affected Covid.

In fact, your argument seems to suggest that atheists do not value human life, which is a surprisingly bold claim.

and also one which most atheists will go to great lengths to refute.

Dude, you only addressed half of your proposal (letting gramma die), you left out the don't social distance and close businesses part. That's what's going to overwhelm the open beds that the dead over 80s will free up.

I'm guessing the OP is under 80.

There's an easy way to stress test this idea. Remove all the ifs, buts and maybes, and let's ask the question,

Should we kill everyone on their 80th birthday. 'They've 'had a good run'.

In my invincible youth living a reckless life, I wanted to die by 30... And then I hit 30 and realised that's not what I want. I imagine the same is true for 80. My grandma in her mid 70s keeps saying she's ready to go, and at the same time expresses her fear of covid. She's obviously not ready to go.

So my first issue with this argument, is that it's hypocritical for anyone under 79, to argue for the euthanasia of 80 year olds. This is a decision that people over 80 should make.

Secondly, old people have value in society. They posses the wisdom of having lived life. They also paved the way for us, by building the society we live in. They deserve respect, at the very least, enough respect to have earned their lives.

On a side note, why don't we just quarentine the old people, and people who are afraid. The afraid can make a living looking after the old people... In a bubble somewhere. They won't need money, they can't shop, so just send them all our leftovers. It sounds cruel, but it's a better lifestyle for them than letting the economy collapse.

When you hit 80, you have the choice of risking death, or living in the basement with Biden. I'd take the risk, personally.

Ah the voice of reason. I love it.

Has anyone thought to actually ask those under 80? or ask those over 80 if they feel they are worth the sacrifice being made by others? I know I would not sacrifice my kids' future for my own and I am no where near 80. Neither would my parents, who are closer to the arbitrary cutoff.

Maybe check before you make an assumption eh.

Maybe check before you make an assumption eh. — Book273

If you read more carefully, you'll see no such assumption has been made, and quite deliberately so. I said...

most normal people under 80 don't really want their way of life bought at the expense of the deaths of huge numbers of people over 80. — Isaac

I've bolded the relevant part. It contains no claim whatsoever about what most people over 80 think.

To simplify things, for the ethically challenged.

"Let me get that heavy box for you,"

"No, you're already carrying a heavy load, I'm fine with it"

"Really, I don't mind"...

Etc.

so you checked with those under 80?

so you checked with those under 80? — Book273

No, it was an ethical point, not a statistical one.

most normal people under 80 don't really want their way of life bought at the expense of the deaths of huge numbers of people over 80. — Isaac

Do I have to keep bolding the relevant words to get you to read them all.

To be as clear as possible, I'm saying that it is not what I think of as normal (ie, a normative claim) for people of one group to want, and so engineer circumstances that, buy their well-being at the expense of some other group.

It is, however, ethically normal to want to sacrifice your own well-being to secure such an outcome for others.

I have a do-not-resuscitate plan and a euthanasia plan lodged with my solicitor, for example.

fucked if we do restrictions (all the collateral damage)
fucked if we don't (covid will kill and injure many people)

so which is the lesser evil? — dazed

Don't do restrictions: lesser evil. My vote. It will be messy, it will leave a mark, and it will not be popular, but it will be over relatively quickly. Everyone left will recover, more quickly and will be functionally immune to the virus (as anyone who isn't is dead) meaning they can move forward with less fear about that thing anyway.

I suppose normal depends on your local demograph. I can think of far more people that would rather succeed or have their kids feel hope for the future than watch their businesses crumple and watch their kids' level of hopelessness grow but somehow feel morally superior because the 80 + population are still around. Just saying. If, when I am 80, this situation comes around again, you tell my great grand kids I love them and wish them the best future and put me down.

If, when I am 80, this situation comes around again, you tell my great grand kids I love them and wish them the best future and put me down. — Book273

Mine starts to kick in at 75, but yes I agree with you here. The euthanasia laws in our country are a disgrace, however, and very difficult to legally circumvent. I'd like to have put in clauses about painless medication in cases where temporary life support might be considered, but apparently I'm told such clauses are difficult to enforce.

hence the reason that Belgium and the Netherlands have what is referred to as suicide-tourism. North Americans go there, spend a few months, or maybe closer to a year, and then elect to be euthanized there. Their body is then shipped home and the funeral takes place here, with understanding that "Dear old Paul died while on vacation." Which is true, but not entirely accurate.

I find it sad that our healthcare system will provide care for the entire lifespan, except the very end. Then we utterly fail our patient.

.

Don't do restrictions: lesser evil. My vote. It will be messy, it will leave a mark, and it will not be popular, but it will be over relatively quickly. Everyone left will recover, more quickly and will be functionally immune to the virus (as anyone who isn't is dead) meaning they can move forward with less fear about that thing anyway. — Book273

I am sympathetic to this, but it will never take hold and I think it's a huge function of the fact that the significant majority of people still believe in God

It will never take hold, agreed. We have no real leadership in government, so no one will inspire us as a populace to face the pandemic unfalteringly.

I suspect it is fear of death more than belief in a higher power than make people fearful. I have never understood having fear if one truly believes in a higher power. If you believe, at your core, that your God loves you and will welcome you home, what is there to be afraid of?

agreed the logic escapes me