Fuck this fucking virus with a fucking farm implement.

1356737

Comments

  • tclune, thanks for that: now I can try and keep my own brain active whilst slowly going mad at being with both Dragonlets all the time and ensuring he does the work set by school.
  • Of course, some people can learn very effectively from books at home. Others can't. I guess we'll find out where my kids sit on that spectrum. I know the boy needs structure and predictability; he'll miss the dozen kids in his support group (maybe not even all of those) and the specialist support teachers, he probably won't miss the thousand-plus other kids at the school who he doesn't really interact with, except for the few in his year group that he shares those lessons he can with.

    Yes, you're right - whilst independent study is a good skill to learn, this is a rather abrupt way to have to learn it. And there are a bunch of things that people just aren't set up to do at home. It doesn't take special equipment to study English or Maths, but people taking hands-on classes (sculpture, ceramics, metalwork, car repair, lab chemistry,...) probably don't have equipment at home to make even some reasonable substitutions.

    Serious suggestion, for your kid who needs structure and predictability: can he get together with some of his study group for half an hour on zoom (or something) at the same time each day? That might help him both keep in touch with his friends, and provide some extra structure for his day.


  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    This is Hell, right. I was venting ...

    Everyone has something to vent about these days.

    All of California is essentially ordered to stay at home* starting at midnight tonight - we got 6 1/2 hours warning. My mother is in a senior community 125 miles north of here. The staff will look in on her every day, but I last saw her 2 1/2 weeks ago, and if I'm lucky I'll see her again in May.

    *There are of course numerous exceptions for essential workers, and gatherings of 9 or fewer people are okay with social distancing and cleaning requirements.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    My childhood was what happened to me. It gave me an advanced reading age, but also a habit of passivity, and being impressed at an early age that physical activity meant I could DIE hasn't been too helpful either.

    There may be good outcomes to be had from the enforced limitations, but it's probably more important to stop them become internalised as can't/mustn't do X.
  • I'm very used to working from home. My "co-worker", not so much.

    One of us will be under the patio in 12 weeks time at this rate.
  • What worries me is that the UK govt are undercooking the repression methods, and the cases will go out of control. You have to trust that the number crunchers have it right, but when I look at Boris scowling like a schoolboy on his podium, I don't feel lucky.
  • That.... the scowling and podium bit..... is exactly why I have swopped to Radio news.

    There is only so much.......
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Re California:

    The orders here in SF and much of the surrounding area are even more strict. E.g., no non-essential gatherings of *any* number of people, other than people in a household.

    Here is the full, official text of the SF order. NOTE: it's a PDF.

    And the San Francisco Chronicle has this article:

    "Bay Area orders ‘shelter in place,’ only essential businesses open in 6 counties."

    ETA: violators can be given jail time or a fine. However, the city is trying to hold off on that, and give people a chance to get used to the rules.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    I called my sister-in-law who self-isolated a year ago after my brother died. Seriously, she remains inside her hoard, only going out for rare doctor appointments, having all her food delivered and placed in a cooler on the porch.

    I told her we had predicted she would be the last person standing when this was all over, and then I mentioned the news about the possible good use of the malaria drug. She said, "Miss Twilight! Don't you know that it's a main plot point in all the Zombie Apocalypse movies that a cure is found, but it proves to have dire side effects!"

    Our Ohio governor is giving us a daily update on local channels. Part of his talk he calls, "rumor control." Yesterday he said the National Guard was helping to deliver food to food banks, but "No we are not living under martial law."

    In between bouts of worrying I'm enjoying all the crazy stuff.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    I am in an at-risk group due to a preexisting respiratory condition. All this banning of social interaction and events is being done to protect me.

    Bear that in mind when I say that I would much rather take my chances with the virus than cancel my entire life for an unspecified amount of time. Some things are more important than the mere perpetuation of biological functions. What’s the point of saving my life if I have to destroy my life to do it?

    Because it's not just your life you're saving, Typhoid Mary. Don't be a fucking Patient 31.

    For many people, is it "saving life" or is it just "briefly postponing death"?

    There was an article on the BBC a few days ago about a chap who had died of Covid-19. Oh how terrible, what a tragedy, better protective measures could have prevented it, etc. And then it mentioned, almost as an afterthought, that he also had Motor Neurone Disease with a predicted life expectancy of... June. That mitigated the tragedy of the piece quite a lot for me.

    Death is a terrible thing, sure, but it's also inevitable. I've long thought that we as a society are far too desperate to eke out every possible second of life for everybody we can. Is that actually the right thing to do?

    ISTM that there has to come a point where the measures and policies put in place to eke out those seconds for people who are going to die relatively soon anyway are actually worse overall than doing nothing. A point where, as I said before, the mere perpetuation of biological functions is no longer the most important thing. Whether we're there or not at the moment is open for discussion, but I maintain that there's nothing wrong with having that discussion in the first place.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Many years ago a man dying of leukemia wrote a book called Stay of Execution. It contained the memorable sentence, "A dying man needs to die in the same way that a sleepy man needs to sleep. There comes a time when it is wrong, as well as futile, to resist."
  • Yes. Reminds me of the way they used to call pneumonia "the old man's friend".
  • mousethief wrote: »
    I am in an at-risk group due to a preexisting respiratory condition. All this banning of social interaction and events is being done to protect me.

    Bear that in mind when I say that I would much rather take my chances with the virus than cancel my entire life for an unspecified amount of time. Some things are more important than the mere perpetuation of biological functions. What’s the point of saving my life if I have to destroy my life to do it?

    Because it's not just your life you're saving, Typhoid Mary. Don't be a fucking Patient 31.

    For many people, is it "saving life" or is it just "briefly postponing death"?

    There was an article on the BBC a few days ago about a chap who had died of Covid-19. Oh how terrible, what a tragedy, better protective measures could have prevented it, etc. And then it mentioned, almost as an afterthought, that he also had Motor Neurone Disease with a predicted life expectancy of... June. That mitigated the tragedy of the piece quite a lot for me.

    Death is a terrible thing, sure, but it's also inevitable. I've long thought that we as a society are far too desperate to eke out every possible second of life for everybody we can. Is that actually the right thing to do?

    ISTM that there has to come a point where the measures and policies put in place to eke out those seconds for people who are going to die relatively soon anyway are actually worse overall than doing nothing. A point where, as I said before, the mere perpetuation of biological functions is no longer the most important thing. Whether we're there or not at the moment is open for discussion, but I maintain that there's nothing wrong with having that discussion in the first place.
    There was discussion on one of the non-stop covid-19 news programmes the other day, stating that the key measure isn't the number of people who die of covid-19 (whether that follows an actual test, or just highly likely given the symptoms expressed) but the excess mortality - how many more people die than would otherwise be the case. The regular updates of the death toll are not usually excess rates which is the number that will ultimately determine the number of fatalities attributed to the disease. Part of that is that excess mortality is also sometimes known as mortality displacement - that people who would die in a given period die earlier - so to know that figure what you need to do is wait until the epidemic has passed and ask "how many people died in 2020?" and "how many would have died in 2020 if there hadn't been a pandemic?" with the number of interest being the difference. Obviously we can't know that number for several months. That excess would then also include incidental deaths not directly attributed to infection - suicides by people who have been forced into social isolation or experience additional stress over job or housing security, people with other illnesses unable to get medical help as resources have been prioritised for covid-19 treatment, etc.

    Incidentally, mortality displacement is seen in other events as well - extreme heat waves kill lots of vulnerable people unable to cope with the extreme conditions, but the heat wave is often followed by a period where the death rate falls below normal because the vulnerable who would have died in that period normally are already dead because of the earlier heat wave.

    In the case of covid-19, the question is whether the disease creates a large number of survivors who beat the virus but are then susceptible to other illnesses and so refresh that pool of vulnerable people and we see a smaller dip in death rates after the disease passes - which would push the excess death rate closer to the regularly reported number of people who have died from the disease.
  • Firenze wrote: »
    In the 1950s I had several months of no schooling because of rheumatic fever - followed by some years of a highly indoor life because of fears of a heart condition.

    It meant I read Dickens when I was eight and by the time I hit secondary school I was way ahead in literacy.

    Frankly, I'm not sure school was even the major element in my education.
    I was trying to find info about the lockdown I recall. It was for many months as well. It might have been this disease. Somehow my memory wants it to be measles.
  • Is it wicked, and unchristian™, to wonder if these pandemics are simply Nature's way (Gaia's way, if you like) of clearing the decks a bit?

    That's NOT to say that nothing should be done to resist it. Just a thought.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Does the government care about anyone but Tory (or potential Tory) voters donors?
    Fixed that.

  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Is it wicked, and unchristian™, to wonder if these pandemics are simply Nature's way (Gaia's way, if you like) of clearing the decks a bit?

    That's NOT to say that nothing should be done to resist it. Just a thought.

    If nothing else, I reckon humanity's carbon footprint is going to go down a bit this year. I do feel a bit like Nature's trying to make a point.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    I am in an at-risk group due to a preexisting respiratory condition. All this banning of social interaction and events is being done to protect me.

    Bear that in mind when I say that I would much rather take my chances with the virus than cancel my entire life for an unspecified amount of time. Some things are more important than the mere perpetuation of biological functions. What’s the point of saving my life if I have to destroy my life to do it?

    Because it's not just your life you're saving, Typhoid Mary. Don't be a fucking Patient 31.

    For many people, is it "saving life" or is it just "briefly postponing death"?

    There was an article on the BBC a few days ago about a chap who had died of Covid-19. Oh how terrible, what a tragedy, better protective measures could have prevented it, etc. And then it mentioned, almost as an afterthought, that he also had Motor Neurone Disease with a predicted life expectancy of... June. That mitigated the tragedy of the piece quite a lot for me.

    Death is a terrible thing, sure, but it's also inevitable. I've long thought that we as a society are far too desperate to eke out every possible second of life for everybody we can. Is that actually the right thing to do?

    ISTM that there has to come a point where the measures and policies put in place to eke out those seconds for people who are going to die relatively soon anyway are actually worse overall than doing nothing. A point where, as I said before, the mere perpetuation of biological functions is no longer the most important thing. Whether we're there or not at the moment is open for discussion, but I maintain that there's nothing wrong with having that discussion in the first place.

    But you're still talking about YOU choosing for SOMEONE ELSE. Someone who has not delegated that decision to you. What gives you that right?
  • For me, it's not so much about avoiding death as it is about avoiding grief. If I die, I go to be with the Lord, no biggie. But losing (missing) someone I love, that's something else again.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    I am in an at-risk group due to a preexisting respiratory condition. All this banning of social interaction and events is being done to protect me.

    Bear that in mind when I say that I would much rather take my chances with the virus than cancel my entire life for an unspecified amount of time. Some things are more important than the mere perpetuation of biological functions. What’s the point of saving my life if I have to destroy my life to do it?

    Because it's not just your life you're saving, Typhoid Mary. Don't be a fucking Patient 31.

    For many people, is it "saving life" or is it just "briefly postponing death"?

    There was an article on the BBC a few days ago about a chap who had died of Covid-19. Oh how terrible, what a tragedy, better protective measures could have prevented it, etc. And then it mentioned, almost as an afterthought, that he also had Motor Neurone Disease with a predicted life expectancy of... June. That mitigated the tragedy of the piece quite a lot for me.

    Death is a terrible thing, sure, but it's also inevitable. I've long thought that we as a society are far too desperate to eke out every possible second of life for everybody we can. Is that actually the right thing to do?

    ISTM that there has to come a point where the measures and policies put in place to eke out those seconds for people who are going to die relatively soon anyway are actually worse overall than doing nothing. A point where, as I said before, the mere perpetuation of biological functions is no longer the most important thing. Whether we're there or not at the moment is open for discussion, but I maintain that there's nothing wrong with having that discussion in the first place.

    But you're still talking about YOU choosing for SOMEONE ELSE. Someone who has not delegated that decision to you. What gives you that right?

    Well right now THEY are deciding for ME. You dong seem to have a problem with that.

    The right belongs to the government. They could decide tomorrow that the economic and social hit from being in lockdown is not worth the extra days/weeks/months of life for those it is supposed to be protecting. Maybe they’d be right about that.

    What gives me the right to talk about it is the same thing that gives any of us the right to talk about any political issue. We’re all part of society and all have a stake in it.
  • Well right now THEY are deciding for ME. You dong seem to have a problem with that.

    No, THEY are deciding that YOU shouldn't infect US, since you seem incapable of deciding that for yourself. This is public health. Try not to be a dick.
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate

    For many people, is it "saving life" or is it just "briefly postponing death"?

    There was an article on the BBC a few days ago about a chap who had died of Covid-19. Oh how terrible, what a tragedy, better protective measures could have prevented it, etc. And then it mentioned, almost as an afterthought, that he also had Motor Neurone Disease with a predicted life expectancy of... June. That mitigated the tragedy of the piece quite a lot for me.

    Death is a terrible thing, sure, but it's also inevitable. I've long thought that we as a society are far too desperate to eke out every possible second of life for everybody we can. Is that actually the right thing to do?

    Here's an idea - why don't you pop on over to the 'Cancer Sucks' thread and tell the regulars there that, in the event of their (in your view, not so untimely) demise from COVID-19, you will be unable to view such a happenstance as very much of a tragedy, given that for many of them, their life is only being measured in months anyway? While you're at it, you could inform those of them who are past cure but still undergoing treatment that their willingness to put up with side-effects far more appalling than anything facing you right now is a symptom of having the absorbed society's entirely wrong attitude toward death, because, why not? We've got to have these conversations, right?

    Or perhaps you could explain why that's different?
  • OK, it's Hell and it's probably stupid to bite. Why is it more tragic if someone with terminal cancer dies tomorrow as opposed to hanging on for another month? Both are real tragedies, both examples of a horrific disease taking someone too soon. Does that extra month make the tragedy any more or less? Does it make the tragedy more or less if instead of one horrific disease the cause of death was another horrific disease?
  • @Twilight a taste of the zombie film Shaun of the Dead if you haven't come across it yet.

    For the rest of you talking about death and whatnot, here is the song that always pops into my head during these discussions. Like LC, I know where I and everyone else is off to. I just have no idea what its like. I don't fear death, just pain.
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    OK, it's Hell and it's probably stupid to bite. Why is it more tragic if someone with terminal cancer dies tomorrow as opposed to hanging on for another month?
    Because for someone who knows they've only got another month, every one of those days matters a hell of a lot to them - and probably to their immediate family and friends also?
    As it happens, however, I wasn't trying to say that it was more tragic when someone who is already sick is robbed of their last little bit of life by COVID-19 - I was taking issue with MtM's implied position that it was less tragic - basically shrug-worthy - when someone who was already sick got robbed of the little time that had left to them.

    I mean, if we're going to start cold-bloodedly assessing human life in this manner, then let me play devil's advocate and suggest that we don't bother too much with treating infants with life-threatening conditions - after all, in most cases, little expense and minimal time lag is required to bring about a replacement, and there are no sunk costs to consider with an individual who has only recently entered society (except to immediate friends and family, of course.) And for them, [shrug]. How do you like that?
  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    OK, it's Hell and it's probably stupid to bite. Why is it more tragic if someone with terminal cancer dies tomorrow as opposed to hanging on for another month? Both are real tragedies, both examples of a horrific disease taking someone too soon. Does that extra month make the tragedy any more or less? Does it make the tragedy more or less if instead of one horrific disease the cause of death was another horrific disease?

    There are actual people on this board facing that prospect for real. It is beyond callous to write that. You are not yourself.

  • Would I have wanted the empty shell that was left of my dad after the cancer had eaten him hang on a few more days? A few more days for my mum with minimal support from the hospice and McMillan nurses to tend his every need while he wasn't really there? No, not really. When the cancer finally took him, it was a relief, an end and a time to move on and start living again. Or, maybe I should ask cousins and my aunt whether they saw value in my uncle's body keep going after dementia had taken his brain? If I'm ever in that state I hope no one spends a great deal of effort in keeping my body simply functioning, but let it go so that they can move on with life because there comes that point when life has ended before life has ended. And, I don't much mind if the final end is whatever disease has taken my life leaving my body ticking over, or some other disease (which in many cases is what's the final cause of death anyway - pneumonia, 'flu, sepsis ...) If that's callous, then I'm callous.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    For the fucktards in the room, @Alan Cresswell was clearly challenging @Marvin the Martian regarding the morality of picking which lives are worth saving. Which appears to be the opposite of what you have interpreted it as.

    I mean, yes, they're both monsters in their own ways. Alan with his childhood education hysteria and Marv with his hilarious ranking of lives. So get it right. I will be grading your efforts.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    @Twilight a taste of the zombie film Shaun of the Dead if you haven't come across it yet.
    LOL. Now I'll have to find the whole thing.

  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    @mousethief wrote
    But you're still talking about YOU choosing for SOMEONE ELSE. Someone who has not delegated that decision to you. What gives you that right?

    Well right now THEY are deciding for ME. You dong seem to have a problem with that.

    They're not here, or I'd tear into them. You are. And your position here is selfish unto other people's death. That's irresponsible and all but murderous. You're being a selfish, murderous dick. Would you like that epitaph on your tombstone?
  • I told you I was ill...
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    I'm one of the terminally ill cancer patients under discussion. I'm in a drug study, with an eye to living longer, because I still have stories to write, books to read, friends to see, stuff to distribute, cats to hug, and more. I'm being Reasonably Careful (I have to have 24/7 care, and I have to trust that those carers are being more than reasonably careful) because of all that. When I hurt too much to go on, and my nightly glasses of wine no longer taste good, I will enter hospice and hope to die (here at home, with said cats) with grace.

    I would prefer not to be sentenced to die sooner (and at great public expense for treatment and hazmat suits) because someone else doesn't think my life matters any more, or that it makes no difference how or when I die.

    When it's time, I'll go. It isn't yet time. Thanks anyway.

  • {{{{{{{Alan}}}}}}}
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'm very used to working from home. My "co-worker", not so much.

    One of us will be under the patio in 12 weeks time at this rate.

    Don't worry about the Patio. By then it will be a bit like Monty Python's famous scene.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    I visited the doctor about a week ago and asked for an End of Life Care Booklet. I am 66 and have diabetes and some of the other fun conditions that mean this virus could be more likely to kill me if I caught it. I asked that it be put into my notes - where the hospital treating me would have access, that if there is a shortage of ventilators (likely because we are also approaching the beginning of the flu season) that someone younger, more healthy and possibly with kids, be given access, rather than me.

    I don't want to die, (especially as it seems such a horrible way to go), and am looking after myself as best I can, nevertheless I feel strongly about this for myself. I know other people don't necessarily share my view, that's OK. Certainly there are friends and family who would be affected, but not to the degree of a young child losing a parent.
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    Is it wicked, and unchristian™, to wonder if these pandemics are simply Nature's way (Gaia's way, if you like) of clearing the decks a bit?

    That's NOT to say that nothing should be done to resist it. Just a thought.

    If nothing else, I reckon humanity's carbon footprint is going to go down a bit this year. I do feel a bit like Nature's trying to make a point.

    I was discussing this very idea only yesterday with a friend I met for coffee (in her house, seated at opposite ends of her lounge, and we said goodbye with an elbow bump). As someone else said, it feels as though the planet has sent us all to our rooms to think about what we've done.

    I couldn't talk about Gaia in the Christian circles I move in without being branded what BF might call A Neretic but as a concept it makes sense.

    As a concept. The reality is there are times when I am batshit scared about what it could mean for humanity and specifically for the people I care about. I've been awake for ages because it's on my mind I'm doing a 6am supermarket run to get some stuff for tea and in the hope of toilet rolls...
  • caroline444caroline444 Shipmate
    edited March 2020
    Is it wicked, and unchristian™, to wonder if these pandemics are simply Nature's way (Gaia's way, if you like) of clearing the decks a bit?

    That's NOT to say that nothing should be done to resist it. Just a thought.

    I see nature as wholly blind to world issues - responsive for sure - if we do toxic things nature is affected, but she is totally unthinking - at least as far as I can see (thank goodness.)
    Huia wrote: »
    I visited the doctor about a week ago and asked for an End of Life Care Booklet. I am 66 and have diabetes and some of the other fun conditions that mean this virus could be more likely to kill me if I caught it. I asked that it be put into my notes - where the hospital treating me would have access, that if there is a shortage of ventilators (likely because we are also approaching the beginning of the flu season) that someone younger, more healthy and possibly with kids, be given access, rather than me.

    I don't want to die, (especially as it seems such a horrible way to go), and am looking after myself as best I can, nevertheless I feel strongly about this for myself. I know other people don't necessarily share my view, that's OK. Certainly there are friends and family who would be affected, but not to the degree of a young child losing a parent.


    I totally agree with you Huia - I would much rather someone younger and fitter got the ventilators. I just wish one's demise wasn't likely to be such an unpleasant experience.
  • {{{{{{{Everyone everywhere--especially Shipmates facing a possible transition from this life to what is next.}}}}}}}
  • Fourth day of self-isolation here. Daughter woke up coughing on Wednesday and I've got something, but I doubt very much it's Covid 19, we're far too healthy. We are allowed out for walks in the UK - I've checked the NHS website - so long as we stay at least 2m away from others, so it's not total confinement. Just no entering shops, not that there's much to buy should we be able to go in.

    Horrific tales from the local Tesco's last time I did go in. The shop guy I was talking too had been assaulted the night before by the bloke who wanted to buy *all* the pot noodles. When the customer was told he could only buy 5 he got violent. It took the manager and security guard to convince him, whereupon this bloke returned to the store repeatedly, buying 5 each time. Or there was the family which had the mother go in to buy to the limit in the morning, followed by the husband, followed by the teenage children.

    Something I set up locally is a WhatsApp group for the close I live on, so we can keep in contact if necessary, more so we can shop for people in isolation, for example. Not wanting to give my idiot neighbour* (yes, he's still there) my phone number I gave out the QR and internet link and hid my phone number on WhatsApp. It's gradually being signed into, and several of the vulnerable older people are logged in.

    * Idiot neighbour of past rants who Just.Doesn't.Get.It. He was served with an eviction notice in August due to persistent his antisocial behaviour, with apparently a final date to move out this month, but he's still bloody here.
  • ==Re Gaia/Earth:

    I tend to think the Earth is alive, in some sense--a living system, if nothing else. That doesn't necessarily mean She's aware of us. Might just be like noticing a gastric pain, or a hangnail, or a massively inflamed and infected appendix.

    I haven't really paired that with the virus situation. I tend to think of it more in terms of all the horrible things humans have done to the Earth--and that maybe She might perceive us as barnacles (and Herself a whale), and whack Her tail down to dislodge us.

    OTOH, She might be doing everything She knows how to do to heal Herself and us.

    ==Nenya--

    I get what you mean about not mentioning Gaia (by that name, at least) in certain Christian circles. I grew up in similar circles. :) I think some folks there can at least see Earth as something God made and that we're responsible for.

    Funny story: Some years back, I was listening to an *anonymous* radio show that (for a quick and dirty label) might be called "New Age". The host likes Jesus as a Teacher, but isn't exactly the biggest fan of formal Christianity and its actions. The host is pretty much about getting everyone together to make the world a better place.

    So on this one episode, the host had several young climate activists on. Somewhere in there, the host made some sort of comment about Christianity, possibly about Christians not taking care of the Earth.

    One young man said he is an Evangelical Christian. The host was *totally* gobsmacked--spluttering, difficulty thinking, etc. The host managed to get their act together, tentatively accepted what was said, and move on.

    I've listened to the radio show many times, and am familiar with the host's style and personality. Being gobsmacked is totally outside of that--and, given the circumstances, was hilarious, IMHO.

  • CameronCameron Shipmate
    @Huia
    @caroline444

    You are both good, kind and noble people. But no one should feel they have to do this, and the kind of discourse that makes them think that they should is terrible.

    In the present crisis, it would be far better if there was emergency focus and investment in healthcare and the public followed restrictions less selfishly, so that doctors were not faced with the choice of picking which lives to save. That is not something any doctor wants to do, with or without noble self-sacrifice being involved.

    The largest category of people at risk are elders. People probably have the idea that elders are all at death’s door anyway, but it is not so. Once you get to a certain age, you have passed some risks and life expectancy extends. For example in the UK (2016 data), on average:
    - men can expect to live for a further 19 years at age 65, 12 years at 75, 6 years at 85 and 3 years at 95
    - women can expect to live for a further 21 years at age 65, 13 years at 75, 7 years at 85, and 3 years at 95

    It’s not that I think that the length of time is a reason for caring - I’m just pointing out it’s different, perhaps, to what people think.

    I lost both parents to dementia (great genetics for me to look forward to) and a step-parent to cancer. I feel great pity for anyone who has also seen loved ones suffer this way, but the experience does not lead me to think that I can (or should even try to) say when someone’s life does or does not matter.

    The most important thing for me is that we are not going to get through this, looking like the kind of society we want to live in, unless (i) we accept that our everyday lives need to change so that others can simply live, and (ii) we realise that compassion is going to be hard work, and stick at it.

    To help others stick at it, we will all need to think about what we are saying, recognise when it is fear and anxiety doing the talking, and try to remember who we are. We all need to be our best selves.

    So thank you for your noble example - but please stick around!

  • Wot Cameron said.
  • I wish I could order on line. All the nice emails from CEOs aren't worth much unless I can do that.
  • Is there a reason you can’t we could help with ?
  • anoesis wrote: »
    I was taking issue with MtM's implied position that it was less tragic - basically shrug-worthy - when someone who was already sick got robbed of the little time that had left to them.

    Less tragic compared to someone who would have lived for many more years being struck down. Not less tragic than the same person living another few months.
  • Cameron wrote: »
    @Huia
    @caroline444

    To help others stick at it, we will all need to think about what we are saying, recognise when it is fear and anxiety doing the talking, and try to remember who we are. We all need to be our best selves.

    I think this is such an important point. I see it in other people, but much more so I see it in myself. It's so easy to see the worst in people or situations, just because you are feeling frightened and anxious.... I really try and bear that in mind.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Something I've been thinking is that in the light of how long the earth has been around, and in the light of eternity, whatever that is, there's really not a lot of difference between one year and a hundred years anyway. You could see it that it doesn't matter if any of us die, as we're all going to die at some point anyway. What makes it matter is that we value human life, however long or short it is.
  • Cameron wrote: »
    @Huia
    @caroline444

    You are both good, kind and noble people. But no one should feel they have to do this, and the kind of discourse that makes them think that they should is terrible.

    Sorry, I meant to reply to this above, but obviously did something wrong.

    For me there is absolutely nothing noble at all. I have experienced depression for many years, and to not exist would truly be no big deal. This probably comes across as very self-pitying, but it isn't. It's honestly just a boring matter of fact.

    The issue for other people is very different though, and my heart goes out to elderly/vulnerable people who may be worried about the situation.
  • OK, let me put it like this. If putting the whole country into lockdown for a year would only save one life then, however tragic it would be for that one person and their loved ones, nobody would seriously suggest we should do it. It would be widely understood that the cure was worse than the disease for society as a whole.

    By the same token, if everybody was going to die unless the whole country went into lockdown for a day then nobody would argue against doing it.

    We are currently somewhere in between those two extremes. Are we somewhere where the balance tips towards the cure being worse than the disease for society as a whole or not? I think we are.
  • Fourth day of self-isolation here. Daughter woke up coughing on Wednesday and I've got something, but I doubt very much it's Covid 19, we're far too healthy.
    My 15 year old went of sick on Tuesday with a slight odd cough. His friends also have the same cough. None of them feel unwell. I developed the vague cough on Wednesday, alongside a sore throat and feeling under the weather. I now feel fatigued but no raised temperature. I think we all have a mild case of COVID 19. The NHS 111 site agrees with me.
Sign In or Register to comment.