>> The current situation is some sort of distributed trade of mental health for
physical health; the brains of the youth for the bodies of the old.
The young are the old, in due time. I'm guessing that the majority of young
people today would prefer to grow old in a society that will care for them,
that has demonstrated that it will care for them, rather than one that is
prepared to "throw them under the bus" to "protect the young".
All of us are young at some point and many of us will grow old. We must be treated
fairly in both states. The sensible way to do that in the current situation is
to establish some sort of protocol for interaction with each other that will
allow economic life to go on, because obviously everyone wants that, but
without exposing the vulnerable to the virus. And that doesn't mean locking
them up until it's gone, because that is still throwing them under the bus.
After all, there is a substantial minority of people with chronic diseases etc
that are still young, and have many productive years of life ahead of them.
But for the rest, also, there is what I say above: if we throw the old under
the bus now, we'll throw the young under the bus also, when it's their turn to
be old.
And this protocol must necessarily be a strict form of social distancing and
some measure to reduce transmission, like wearing masks. We know that works.
Until there is a better solution, that's the best solution.
So there's no point in saying "this can't be done, you'll find me at the pub".
It has to be done. And it has to be done for the good of everyone, young
and old, vulnerable and strong. There's no point in thinking that "I'm young,
this doesn't affect me" and carrying on as before because "it only kills the
old and sick". One day, you yourself will be old and sick. And
whatever kills the old and sick at that point will get you, unless the young
and strong around you take care of you, like we are asked to take care of the
old and sick right now.
And if young people don't care for the old and sick right now, they're digging
their own graves.
Why can't the old be "locked up"? They already are, along with the rest of the population!
> they're digging their own graves
Digging our graves for when we're old? Yes, we are all going to die, and probably when we are old. I find your framing interesting though, as if it would be the young treating old people like crap by ultimately choosing to get on with their lives as the mental health costs creep up and up. No, it's the virus, a force of nature, that is doing that. Denying our humanity by enforcing social distancing, well I fail to see how this is a objectively moral position, either.
Lockdown and social distancing is fine and good, but it cannot extend towards a year or more, people will not stand for it.
Risk of coronavirus is a gradient due to age. But more importantly IMO is the number of other people who are also at risk- the obese, the diabetic, the immunocompromised... and of course all the family and friends and roommates who also may go into isolation so that they don’t accidentally expose their loved ones.
That looks very close to a lockdown to me... (especially in my country with a very high proportion of obese people. There’s probably an order of magnitude more of people living with an obese person.)
Yes. If we don't treat the old now as we want to be treated when we are old ourselves, why would anyone do us the favour? We work towards the world we'll live in the future, right now, in the present. What we do now, how we behave towards those whose place we will be in one day will determine how we are treated when we are in their place.
>> Denying our humanity by enforcing social distancing, well I fail to see how this is a objectively moral position, either.
This is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? "Denying our humanity..."? By not going to the pub?
I note also that the narrative seems to have shifted a bit lately. A few weeks ago it was along the lines of "we can't keep the lockdown for ever, or the economy will go bust". Now, judging from this thread, it's changed to "we can't keep social distancing for ever because our lives will be destroyed".
Or just because the weather is good and people must go to the pub.
>Yes. If we don't treat the old now as we want to be treated when we are old ourselves, why would anyone do us the favour? We work towards the world we'll live in the future, right now, in the present. What we do now, how we behave towards those whose place we will be in one day will determine how we are treated when we are in their place.
We wouldn't be treating old people badly by not completely shutting down the entire country.
>This is a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? "Denying our humanity..."? By not going to the pub?
Humans are social animals. Being unable to socialise is dehumanising, yes. It's not just an inconvenience, it's very real and very harmful.
>I note also that the narrative seems to have shifted a bit lately. A few weeks ago it was along the lines of "we can't keep the lockdown for ever, or the economy will go bust". Now, judging from this thread, it's changed to "we can't keep social distancing for ever because our lives will be destroyed".
It's not a coincidence, it's because the human cost is creeping up. You're literally just observing the negative impact of lockdown on people's health, but instead you seem to be choosing to interpret it as a negative and selfish character trait. Lockdown is obviously and trivially unsustainable, but so too is social distancing in the not too long run.
>> We wouldn't be treating old people badly by not completely shutting down the entire country.
Can you show me in one of my comments where I advocated for "shutting down the entire country"? Or stopping people from socialising?
I'm sorry but I don't have much patience for that kind of conversation. It tends to waste too much time with clarifications and refutations of wrong assumptions.
Please read them again, or for the first time if you haven't done so already. Especially the one about responding to the strongest interpretation of what someone says.
I might suggest that the issue is that you're attacking this from an angle of giving people minor manipulations on a state of full lockdown - "oh, you know, there will be changes for years, but not full lockdown", "X might re-open but with the 2 metre rule, maybe, not sure", etc.
From our perspective, that's you seizing control of the narrative and handing out minor concessions. The entire country is currently shut down, unless you change a _lot_, it'll still be mostly like that.
Stuff like 'ok, we'll do 2 meter rule in the pub, that's basically the same, right' feels like a complete joke. It's dreamed up by someone who like, doesn't go there anyway, so what do they care? It pretty much defeats the entire point of even going, and beyond that it's obviously not economically viable anyway.
But that's not all - not only are the suggested steps seemingly absurd (e.g. "soon", we can open restaurants, but can't meet family in their homes) - there's not even a real timetable, it's all conditional on Boris' mood! Months in, and we're still talking about "ooh err, maybe well, maybe this, I guess perhaps, but that, but this other thing".
Basically, it feels like not being taken seriously. It gets people's backs up. I apologise if in conversation I've seemed aggressive, but I hope the above explains why.
The virus exists regardless, but how we choose to respond to it is something that I'm not sure democracy is even capable of handling. I guess you could call it a power struggle?
At the moment the only possible method of contesting is to just ignore the rules, but you're not even taking that seriously, you're pretending it away as if people are irresponsible and just want to see death and destruction.
Re the whole old/young split: I think that the pensioner form of esotericn would be on board with my current views. I know that when I'm older I'm going to be more frail; I imagine spending time inside reading, studying, etc (depending on my eyesight), possibly spending time with my partner, perhaps we have pets, etc.
Sure - the theatre, galleries etc are things I'd like to do, but realistically, I wouldn't take the elevated risks of death in order to do them. If no-one does them though, they collapse, and I'm left with shit like Netflix in my old age regardless.
I haven't broken the site guidelines, we just have radically different perceptions of what is tolerable. My idea of shutting down the country is quite different to yours, presumably. Even mandatory 2m social distancing is utterly ridiculous and unsustainable in the short term, never mind lockdown.
The young are the old, in due time. I'm guessing that the majority of young people today would prefer to grow old in a society that will care for them, that has demonstrated that it will care for them, rather than one that is prepared to "throw them under the bus" to "protect the young".
All of us are young at some point and many of us will grow old. We must be treated fairly in both states. The sensible way to do that in the current situation is to establish some sort of protocol for interaction with each other that will allow economic life to go on, because obviously everyone wants that, but without exposing the vulnerable to the virus. And that doesn't mean locking them up until it's gone, because that is still throwing them under the bus. After all, there is a substantial minority of people with chronic diseases etc that are still young, and have many productive years of life ahead of them. But for the rest, also, there is what I say above: if we throw the old under the bus now, we'll throw the young under the bus also, when it's their turn to be old.
And this protocol must necessarily be a strict form of social distancing and some measure to reduce transmission, like wearing masks. We know that works. Until there is a better solution, that's the best solution.
So there's no point in saying "this can't be done, you'll find me at the pub". It has to be done. And it has to be done for the good of everyone, young and old, vulnerable and strong. There's no point in thinking that "I'm young, this doesn't affect me" and carrying on as before because "it only kills the old and sick". One day, you yourself will be old and sick. And whatever kills the old and sick at that point will get you, unless the young and strong around you take care of you, like we are asked to take care of the old and sick right now.
And if young people don't care for the old and sick right now, they're digging their own graves.