Argentine wifes inches from getting the boot

[sergio]

This would be an interesting question if these persons could circulate without endangering anyone else they may come in contact with.
This is not the case, so we need not delve into philosophy. If you are (or become) a carrier, you are endangering each and every person you come in contact with. Hard no. And governments should be able to enforce this.

Being "old" doesn't mean you are a carrier any more than being "young" means you are a carrier. You cannot compel older people to stay at home merely because they are older. If the issue is contagion, you could rationally argue that people who are tested positive should stay at home and that would include those who are young. If someone who is older and negative chooses to circulate freely he is only a risk too himself. If someone who is young and has an underlying health issue but who is negative for Corona circulates, the same logic applies.

 

[ben]

Being "old" doesn't mean you are a carrier any more than being "young" means you are a carrier. You cannot compel older people to stay at home merely because they are older. If the issue is contagion, you could rationally argue that people who are tested positive should stay at home and that would include those who are young. If someone who is older and negative chooses to circulate freely he is only a risk too himself. If someone who is young and has an underlying health issue but who is negative for Corona circulates, the same logic applies.

It seems (is this the case?) that you are discussing a situation in which only the elderly are ordered to stay home. Your argument would then be that such a person is not endangering the public more than anyone else.

If this is what you mean, then sure, I might see your point - likely subject to the condition that the person concerned disavows any public or private health assistance funds.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Being "old" doesn't mean you are a carrier any more than being "young" means you are a carrier. You cannot compel older people to stay at home merely because they are older. If the issue is contagion, you could rationally argue that people who are tested positive should stay at home and that would include those who are young. If someone who is older and negative chooses to circulate freely he is only a risk too himself. If someone who is young and has an underlying health issue but who is negative for Corona circulates, the same logic applies.

The real issue here is we are assuming predictions are right when they say 2% mortality rate.
However, seems they are accounting deaths of young people as natural deaths:

Official Counts Understate the U.S. Coronavirus Death Toll (Published 2020)

Inconsistent protocols, limited resources and a patchwork of decision making have led to an undercounting of people with the coronavirus who have died, health experts say.

www.nytimes.com

 

[sergio]

It seems (is this the case?) that you are discussing a situation in which only the elderly are ordered to stay home. Your argument would then be that such a person is not endangering the public more than anyone else.

If this is what you mean, then sure, I might see your point - likely subject to the condition that the person concerned disavows any public or private health assistance funds.

I was very clear. Read my words. You advocate discrimination against the elderly. I disagree. Anyone who tests positive should stay at home until it passes and the test results are negative. - whether he/she is young or old. Age is irrelevant. Those younger people, and there are many, who have certain health conditions (obesity, hypertension, diabetes are growing problems in Argentina) should stay at home if they test positive, same as their parents and grandparents. It's their choice. They are not posing a risk to anyone except possibly to themselves. Your argument that they should be denied health care if they become ill is absurd. To be consistent you'd have to apply your 'philosophy' to anyone who does not observe optimum health precautions. What about overweight people? if they don't slim down, they should be left to die on the street like rats? Someone who has a bad diet and winds up with a heart condition should be left to die because he hasn't been eating organic? Give me a break. If your system were applied virtually NO-ONE would qualify for health care.

 

[Alby]

The only reason quarantines/lockdowns exist anywhere is to enable health systems to prepare for the coming onslaught of cases. For example:

At a secret location in Melbourne, Australia is preparing for battle

As Australia buys itself crucial time in the fight against COVID-19, a cautious sense of optimism is starting to grow among those racing to get our hospitals ready.

www.abc.net.au

Once systems are geared up to meet the coming demand, governments will ease the restrictions. Governments don't really want to flatten the curve. They just want to flatten it as much as necessary to not overwhelm the health system. Once that rate is found, they will want to keep it there so that economic activity can resume and herd immunity will gradually increase.

The reason governments will not give older people exemption, is because older people will get gravely ill with COVID19 in much higher numbers than younger people and could thus cause the curve to rise again after it has flatened to the desired level and overwhelm the health system.

That is the argument government will use (even if they don't say it openly) and that is what will happen here. I am one of the people that will be caught up in this. They is no point debating the morality of it. We need to get ready for it. The quarantine exemptions here (obtained via extending eligibility for the Certificado Unico) are unlikely to be extended to people over 65 for a very long time.

 

[ben]

I was very clear. Read my words. You advocate discrimination against the elderly. I disagree. Anyone who tests positive should stay at home until it passes and the test results are negative. - whether he/she is young or old. Age is irrelevant.

There are many people who carry this virus and but are asymptomatic. This means that while they exhibit no symptoms, they can easily infect others. Hence what I originally wrote: “you are endangering each and every person you come in contact with. Hard no.” This applies equally to young and old, yes.

The only reason to discuss older people in particular, that to use your words “want to take the risk and circulate normally”, is in a case where most people were already allowed to circulate. In that case, we as a society have decided not to worry about carriers (for whatever unfathomable reason) and simply want to keep the most vulnerable at home.

I don’t think that makes any sense, and neither do any the governments that do not discriminate between young and old, and treat each person not only as a potential patient but as a potential transmitter of the virus.

Those younger people, and there are many, who have certain health conditions (obesity, hypertension, diabetes are growing problems in Argentina) should stay at home if they test positive, same as their parents and grandparents. It's their choice. They are not posing a risk to anyone except possibly to themselves.

What?! Someone who tests positive poses a risk only to themselves?? I think I’ve lost you completely.

Your argument that they should be denied health care if they become ill is absurd. To be consistent you'd have to apply your 'philosophy' to anyone who does not observe optimum health precautions. What about overweight people? if they don't slim down, they should be left to die on the street like rats? Someone who has a bad diet and winds up with a heart condition should be left to die because he hasn't been eating organic? Give me a break. If your system were applied virtually NO-ONE would qualify for health care.

We can argue about general lifestyle choices, and still draw some lines. A highly infectious disease which has already managed to completely overrun New York City’s health system* should be one of the cases where if you decide to be an idiot and ignore everyone’s guidance in the name of “it’s a free country and I can assess my risks myself”, you should not then obligate society to pay for your choice.

*New York ambulances have already been directed not to transport cardiac arrest patients to the hospital. If the patient cannot be revived on site, the body is released to the NYPD. That’s how overwhelmed the health system is at this moment.

 

[Somewhereinba]

So the elderly and "sick" (whatever that means) should be compelled by law to say in their homes until there is a vaccine? Even if that is a couple of years from now? Apparently you are not one of the elderly or sick. What if the elderly and sick want to take the risk, just like anyhow else, and go out to resume a normal life? I don't understand how they are any more a threat to society than anyone else. They may be at greater risk of dying if they contract the virus but how are they a threat to the health of others? By sick I guess you would include everyone with HIV. Since they have weaker immune systems, they should also stay under indefinite house arrest? Who will have rights?

I'm not saying by law, it's their choice. If they want to risk it then go out. This has gone on to long. Everyone should have the same rights, why am I and others being blocked from returning home when others like this guys wife are fucking around not taking it seriously. Its ridiculous, open things up and let the virus do its thing. There will be deaths like every disease but the country will be in a better place later on. Every day the economy is closed poverty increases, facts. For all those who are high risk - they should be making smart choices to better protect themselves by ppe or staying isolated until a vaccine arrives.

 

[sergio]

There are many people who carry this virus and but are asymptomatic. This means that while they exhibit no symptoms, they can easily infect others. Hence what I originally wrote: “you are endangering each and every person you come in contact with. Hard no.” This applies equally to young and old, yes.

The only reason to discuss older people in particular, that to use your words “want to take the risk and circulate normally”, is in a case where most people were already allowed to circulate. In that case, we as a society have decided not to worry about carriers (for whatever unfathomable reason) and simply want to keep the most vulnerable at home.

I don’t think that makes any sense, and neither do any the governments that do not discriminate between young and old, and treat each person not only as a potential patient but as a potential transmitter of the virus.



What?! Someone who tests positive poses a risk only to themselves?? I think I’ve lost you completely.



We can argue about general lifestyle choices, and still draw some lines. A highly infectious disease which has already managed to completely overrun New York City’s health system* should be one of the cases where if you decide to be an idiot and ignore everyone’s guidance in the name of “it’s a free country and I can assess my risks myself”, you should not then obligate society to pay for your choice.

*New York ambulances have already been directed not to transport cardiac arrest patients to the hospital. If the patient cannot be revived on site, the body is released to the NYPD. That’s how overwhelmed the health system is at this moment.

I was saying that if an older person or someone with a compromised immune system chooses to circulate and then gets infected (tests positive) it was a result of his/her decision. At that point he/she should quarantine until the risk of spreading it has passed. The risk of such individuals spreading the virus is no greater (I think actually less) than the risk of someone who is young so it is illogical to quarantine the elderly and not the young. Anyone can conrtact the virus and spread it. Young people who go out now, meet friends and socialize can easily spread the virus. To be consistent, you'd have to deny them health insurance and let them die in the street, the same that you'd deny coverage to the elderly. I am not advocating ignoring the quarantine. I am pointing out the absurdity and injustice of discriminating against one group of people who pose no more risk than the other. In reality the young who use apps to meet people, socialize and have sex, are much more likely to spread the virus than an older person who goes out to sit in a cafe!

 

[sergio]

I'm not saying by law, it's their choice. If they want to risk it then go out. This has gone on to long. Everyone should have the same rights, why am I and others being blocked from returning home when others like this guys wife are fucking around not taking it seriously. Its ridiculous, open things up and let the virus do its thing. There will be deaths like every disease but the country will be in a better place later on. Every day the economy is closed poverty increases, facts. For all those who are high risk - they should be making smart choices to better protect themselves by ppe or staying isolated until a vaccine arrives.

This situation cannot go on forever. Already the US and UK are working on an exit strategy. My point, as said in my previous post, is that the elderly and others who have compromised immune systems cannot become scapegoats. They are no more dangerous to society than anyone else. They may be a danger to themselves because they are more likely not to recover but if they are negative they will not spread the virus. So why pick on this group? In reality, if any group is to be singled out and have their rights restricted, it's those who use social apps that let them easily meet others for sexual encounters. This is a very easy way of spreading not only the virus but lots of other serious diseases including HIV. I hear no-one here calling for the criminalization of 'dating' apps.

 

[Pierre Smith]

It's becoming more and more clear that this virus - while deadly - has infected far more people than generally known.

Between March 22 and April 4, 2020, all pregnant women at two NYC hospitals were tested. 13.7% were positive and, of these, 87.9% were asymptomatic.

Think about the giant number of people who must have had the virus for almost 14% of women to test positive for the active - not antibodies - virus during a given two week period.

Great twitter exchanges:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1249873227939266560

The actual study: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316