[themitigating]

(I'm only pointing this out)

There's also the issue where people believe that everyone, regardless of age, should be treated to the maximum level possible (or what they can afford in the case of the US).

If you publicity suggested that someone who is 99 years old and in poor health shouldn't receive some treatment that costs a massive amount of money/resources you would be looked at in disgust. No politican would even dare. Combine that with the selfish nature of most people (of course to be fair the instinctual desire to avoid death) and an aging population (as you mentioned) and it seems like a few generations are going to be weighed down to extended the lives of the least productive members of society.

[bruce511]

Yep. It's political suicide to bring up fairly obvious age/prognosis limits, but ultimately we all die of something.

Assuming most disease based hospital stays (heart attacks strokes, cancers) are biased towards older folk it makes sense that resources to younger folk be prioritised.

It makes -sense-, but asking a decent human to turf an "old person" out of bed because a "young person" has arrived (with a survivable, but urgent condition) is tough.

In war triage is a thing. Save the ones who can be saved, more-or-less ignore the ones you can't. We cannot, and should not, expect civilian medical staff to triage ambulances, A&E, ward beds. But health services are being drowned in the meantime.

[thri737]

There is no need to kick anyone out of bed. You can adjust policy.

For example no lockdowns, that sacrificed young people over old. I still have bad health from that. My daughter has developmental issues.

And overweight people should not have publicly founded insurance. We should respect their wish to die!

And no publicly founded health insurance for non-citizens. That even has strong political support!

[themitigating]

There were lockdowns in the US but the pressure about them from businesses and a decent amount of the population made it difficult to continue to implement.

"And overweight people should not have publicly founded insurance. We should respect their wish to die!"

Overweight people don't want to die. Obviously you know this but were trying to make some point, one I don't understand.

[bruce511]

Ok, that took a turn I wasn't expecting.

So no overweight people. Hmm. I'm not sure what the cut-off for overweight is...

I guess, if we're going to police lifestyles from a health point of view, we should exclude smokers, vapers and drinkers from the list as well? Apparently no amount if alcohol is good for you...so....?

While we're at it what about red meat consumption? Thats not great in excess.

Oh, and motor-bikes. There's no good reason for those, and they're like accident magnets.

I guess what I'm saying is that once you start down the path of determining non-qualifying behaviors, it's hard to stop. Surely all of us would be disqualified sooner or later.

[themitigating]

Second reply here because I finally understood your comment and what you meant.

I suggested selective care based on cost and quality of life. That's the logical way to do it even if you think it's immoral. You believe non-citizens shouldn't be helped? Why? "Because they don't contribute with taxes". There are many people who are citizens who don't contribute. Illegal aliens also provide a workforce for vital food production and other jobs that help the economy (regardless of if you think it's wrong).

You also had a issue with fat people because it's their fault. What about people who speed and crash? Skiers who fall, horse riders, any optional activity that carries risk falls into the same category.

---

"For example no lockdowns, that sacrificed young people over old"

Young people were thankfully much more resilient to Covid but was this wasn't known initially when the strictest lockdowns were put in place. Health officials were being cautious. What were to happen if there were no lockdowns? Certainly more deaths of old people but also adults in their 40s, 50s, 60s to a lesser extent.

As for the mental toll on young children- the total lockdowns didn't last long, you could go out and meet in small groups even during the initial phase. Many people didn't even care or follow the advice after the first few weeks. However, kids were remote learning for much longer but if that causes development issues what about home schooling? What about kids in remote areas?

What is the specific situation and time frame that cause your child's development issues?

I'm admitting there was a not insignificant mental toll on children, as this study shows[1]. You need to weigh this against the alternative of less or even not having any lockdowns and lack of information when these decisions were made. This means that using data you have now about the affect on children and how Covid 19 affected different age groups as a criticism, which I don't think is valid