ChatterBank1 min ago
Led By "The Science"?
Would you be happy to go along with this discriminatory idea?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's very difficult to argue that it's not time that we started taking responsibility for ourselves when, by definition, that can't be the focus on a pandemic. The decisions we make can profoundly impact the health of others, no matter the precautions they take.
I would agree that the focus on over 70s seems a bit too arbitrary -- there is an increased mortality rate right down to people over 60, even.
I would agree that the focus on over 70s seems a bit too arbitrary -- there is an increased mortality rate right down to people over 60, even.
The concern for others is obviously pertinent, Jim. But if we're discussing infection rates, it doesn't really matter. Once somebody has it, they have it. In fact, if their symptoms are more severe they are less likely to be out and about and so less likely to infect anybody else. I think the increased risk because of vulnerability (whether due to age or anything else) is a risk that individuals must assess for themselves because, by and large, they will be the ones on the receiving end of any bad outcomes.
The measure wouldn’t just protect the over 70s, but would help keep the number who need hospital treatment down, as those over 70 are more likely to need it.
I heard a doctor on the radio a couple of weeks ago saying that no matter how much activity a 70 year old does, their immune system is still 70 years old, and therefore compromised.
All that said, I think people should be given the chance to make their own choices until it is proven that stricter measures are necessary.
I heard a doctor on the radio a couple of weeks ago saying that no matter how much activity a 70 year old does, their immune system is still 70 years old, and therefore compromised.
All that said, I think people should be given the chance to make their own choices until it is proven that stricter measures are necessary.
Unfortunately, NJ, the flaw in that reasoning is that asymptomatic people, or at least those with only a minimal response to the disease, could also be spreading it.
https:/
https:/
I suspect the opposite. Treat most over 70's like adults, offer advice and explain the reasoning and they may well agree and comply if the feel that its right for them. Start treating them like children and "ordering" them and see what happens!
Unless everyone is required to carry proof of age and show it as often as required, I honestly don't see how its enforceable anyway.....and what will police do to oldies who refuse to show proof or go home? arrest them en masse? remember those oldies are the teens of the 1960's!
Unless everyone is required to carry proof of age and show it as often as required, I honestly don't see how its enforceable anyway.....and what will police do to oldies who refuse to show proof or go home? arrest them en masse? remember those oldies are the teens of the 1960's!
//what will police do to oldies who refuse to show proof or go home? arrest them en masse? //
the police are there to enforce the law, not enforce the whim of cabinet ministers. by design or omission, there are no qualifying criteria (age, race, weight, etc) in any of the provisions of the legislation.
the police are there to enforce the law, not enforce the whim of cabinet ministers. by design or omission, there are no qualifying criteria (age, race, weight, etc) in any of the provisions of the legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|