[fancybouncy]

Isn't most of India's population very young (half of it is under 15)? I'm skeptical that the "vulnerable elderly people" had much impact on India's covid story.

Either way, the elderly have already lived their life, isn't it better to focus on the younger people when a choice must be made?

[noduerme]

If you had two hard drives and had to destroy one, without knowing what was on them, only how much information they each contained... wouldn't you keep the one with more stored in its memory?

[Kwpolska]

You’re focusing on the memories and experiences of a person, but are completely ignoring the potential to grow, develop, and do things - something that 30-year-olds have, and 90-year-olds pretty much don’t.

[noduerme]

But it only takes 30 years to make a 30 year old. They're at least 3x more replaceable than 90 year olds.

[edit] also, do things for whom? To what end if not to build experience?

[abofh]

Alternatively, most 30 year olds have 30 more years to contribute to society. Most 90 year olds do not.

[archagon]

Why is “ability to contribute to society” a factor in considering who to save? Down that path lies euthanasia of the disabled and mentally ill.

[fancybouncy]

and this is bad how?

[headsoup]

Yeah it definitely makes sense to sacrifice the children for the elderly, I mean what good are the kids of tomorrow without the old of today.

In other words I'm saying that's a silly analogy

[noduerme]

>> what good are the kids of tomorrow without the old of today

Worshipping youth in its ignorance and speed while discarding the wisdom of elders is called fascism. The right question would be what can civilization hope to achieve besides a reversion to barbarism and "Lord of the Flies" if it doesn't hold its oldest, most vulnerable and most wise members, and their experience, in the highest regard?

The young have always been proud and disposable. And if they don't die young, they get old. Then maybe they have something more interesting to say.

[headsoup]

Wow straight to the fascism argument, nice. I fail to see at all how sacrificing the young and healthy for the old and ill is not fascism, but sacrificing the old and ill for the young is? Isn't a component (not all...) of fascism any sacrifice 'for the good of the nation.' Didn't realise it was so specific.

You're putting the wrong lens on this. My argument is that we are to deliberately harm the young to possibly protect the old and ill (which in this case isn't so as the vaccines don't guarantee prevention), rather than leaving them alone in the hope of protecting the old and ill as-is. Not 'let the old die for the young.'

[joshuahedlund]

When you have 1.4 billion people, even a lower proportion of older folks is a huge number. Including a lot lost “only” in their 50’s and 60’s.