The pandemic: The view after 5 months

[Somewhereinba]

The reason is called triage: First, help those with a better chance to survive.

Exactly - however this whole situation is not binary. If children went to school it does not mean all the elderly would drop dead. It just means that those who are at high risk need to ensure they take extreme care (as they should be doing anyway) and be free to make their own choices whether they want to risk infection by going out and socialising. However by not allowing children to go to school/kinder it is a FACT that the longer this drags on there will be severe consequences in later life with social/mental issues - many which lead to suicide and depression. This is not up for debate - its been studied a lot by paediatricians.

 

[gracielle]

I think you misunderstood my point. From the Governments perspective their own demographic is primarily older adults (look at the chief medical officer and how unhealthy/fat he is) - so from their POV they are actually at higher risk of issues if they caught the virus. They also know that there is no risk to them losing their financial income even if they destroy the economy by enforcing these harsh measures because as we all know Government jobs are the safest going around. It is simply a case of extreme self-interest (not a surprise given thats all they do every day anyway since they are mostly corrupt).

So you are not referring to the ALL...as meaning ALL the senior citizens. I got it....thank you for the clarification.

 

[Somewhereinba]

My final point is all the elderly people I know are NOT enjoying being locked inside all day either - as I said when you are at the stage of your life social relationships are one of the best ways to get enjoyment considering the limitations to go for a bike ride or run etc. This has been taken away from them. I think you would struggle to find an elderly person who would argue that kids should be locked inside without seeing friends to keep them 'safer'.

 

[Somewhereinba]

So you are not referring to the ALL...as meaning ALL the senior citizens. I got it....thank you for the clarification.

No of course not - I think senior citizens like everyone should have the right to live their life as they please. If I'm in the last years of my life I can guarantee I would not be happy being locked inside for year counting down the days until I died. Every day with no chance to see my family and friends and have laughs/conversations. Instead I would take precautions by wearing a mask, good hygiene etc and continue to live my life the best I could. If after all the precautions I took I happened to fall victim to covid and die then so be it - life will go on but I know the time I had before my death was enjoyable instead of depressing. At this stage NO ONE can tell us how long this will continue - are we all OK with being locked inside for 1 year? 2 years? What about our jobs/income and children? Is the Government going to become responsible to give everyone a job that they have lost with the same salary due to restrictions they implemented? Is the Government going to make up for the lack of socialisation and mental health effects caused to everyone (including children) the lockdown has caused? Have they modelled these effects and have they presented them to the population so we all know what the lockdown actually means for our future?

 

[on the brink]

This is not up for debate - its been studied a lot by paediatricians.

Sounds like the kind of categorical thing Trump says. "Everybody knows...", "Lots of people tell me....", etc., etc.

But I believe that we should go on with the business of living and let the chips fall where they may. Life in a permanent defensive mode is no life at all.

 

[gracielle]

My final point is all the elderly people I know are NOT enjoying being locked inside all day either - as I said when you are at the stage of your life social relationships are one of the best ways to get enjoyment considering the limitations to go for a bike ride or run etc. This has been taken away from them. I think you would struggle to find an elderly person who would argue that kids should be locked inside without seeing friends to keep them 'safer'.

I am 70 years old and in very good health. I have been walking almost daily, a normal routine prior to the pandemic, for 2-3 hrs in many of the neighborhoods in CABA. I have continued the same routine since the start of the pandemic. From the beginning I have maintained ample social distance, used a medical mask and surgical gloves to protect myself from others/protect them from me. The only restriction I have imposed on myself is no physical interactions with friends and family. But I do communicate with them via Skype. I see many seniors taking the same precautions who are out and about walking as well. Either on their own or accompanied by a friend/relative and/or attendant. Even some in wheelchairs. So not every senior has chosen to be "locked up" in spite of the DNU's and recommendations.

 

[EL_TIGRE_de_Tigre]

Everyone is important for sure - but there is a reason why hospitals in Italy were giving priority to the young over the elderly when it came to treatment and beds.. You may not agree with me but it is globally accepted that young lives hold more value than the elderly who have less life to live. The young also have a higher likelihood of successful treatment. Too many people and Governments are looking at everything in a binary manner as if you have X then you can't have Y. My point is that there IS a solution that enables children to go to school while maintaining a good level of care in regards to transfer of viruses, there is a way that allows people to exercise and live some semblance of normality while still taking precautions to prevent the virus spread. Where I live Government employees are now back at work in their offices in large groups (not all wear masks) - tell me why this should be allowed and enforced BUT children are not allowed to go to school and socialise and get an education.

Focussing specifically on the why's of children being back in the classroom ... My reply would be because the staff who work in the school may be at an age where they would be vulnerable. Would that be a fair point?

 

[on the brink]

Focussing specifically on the why's of children being back in the classroom ... My reply would be because the staff who work in the school may be at an age where they would be vulnerable. Would that be a fair point?

Not only that, but in this country of extended family, if they caught the virus they could infect two generations when they got home. Perhaps they could go to school on alternate days, splitting classes in two with just half the students in each, sitting at a safe distance. But, children being children, it would be hard to keep them away from each other.

 

[on the brink]

On the subject raised by Somewhere in BA, about some people being worth-saving more than others, this came to mind:


First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[gracielle]

Not only that, but in this country of extended family, if they caught the virus they could infect two generations when they got home. Perhaps they could go to school on alternate days, splitting classes in two with just half the students in each, sitting at a safe distance. But, children being children, it would be hard to keep them away from each other.

According to Nicolas Trotta, Minister of Education, when the time is right to resume classes, they are looking at doing alternate weeks. But as you aptly point it out, how do they plan to keep kids separated from each other?