> The government and media don't give a stuff about anyone under the age of 50, certainly not under 40.
I find this blend of comments disheartening and disappointing, mainly because they appear to come from a place of willful ignorance.
Please try not to forget that the reason all covid-19 vaccination programmes have been rolled out progressively from the older to younger segments of the population is due to the fact that:
a) vaccines are in short supply, thus mass vaccination programs demand a rational approach to maximize it's effectiveness in lowering covid-19 deaths,
b) all covid-19 vaccination programmes prioritize vaccinating at-risk groups within their population,
c) covid-19 is patently known to have a considerably high fatality rate on older segments of the population, while on younger segments of the population it's negligible.
Let's not feign ignorance here. Covid-19 kills old people in spades while young people just brush it off. If you care about loved ones and aren't happy with he idea of seeing your elders die from covid-19 then it's obvious why said elders are moved to the front of the queue to get vaccinated.
This should be so obvious that should require no explanation. Then again basic steps to safeguard the health and well-being of others, such as the ridiculous anti-mask militancy, is sadly a thing. So it's clear that many among us simply care nothing about any issue that does not involve them directly and are so self-centered that interpret basic care for others as an affront to their personal privileges.
> The statement is absolutely correct referring to the government and the Conservative party in general.
It really isn't, and reeks of egocentric entitlement. It should be obvious that at-risk groups are a priority. Complaining that the people that likely die from covid are being prioritized over a group that has a negligible risk for no reason other than wanting to jump the line is something that's both baffling and dumbfounding.
They could have said "we need to get rid of jobs and remove your social contact to save a few old people's lives, it's going to cost a fortune, so we're going to implement a one of wealth tax which will mean those who we're destroying the economy for (to implement lockdown and brexit) are the ones that will have to pay for it - the very people that made an absolute fortune from the rise in asset prices, the ones sitting on final salary pensions paid for from the public purse
But they didn't. Instead they do things like closing sure start centres and increasing pensions way more than wages while taxing people 69% marginal rates for a typical middle class job.
It's not so simple, though. Retired people can quarantine. They might not want to, and they might choose not to, but they're able. Working-age people can't: they have to go out into the world and put themselves at risk in order to keep this show running.
The real question is: is our goal to minimize deaths, or to do what's fair? For the most part, we've chosen to heed the advice of our public health experts and minimize deaths.
But is it really fair that we vaccinate all the old people first, just so they can leave their home and get back to their weekly bingo nights, instead of the younger person working at a grocery store to make sure everyone has food on the table? From an ethics perspective, I don't think the answer is so clear-cut, and I think it's reasonable for people to gripe about it.
It's not just about vaccines rationing, it's vaccine passports, it's housing, it's taxes, it's wealth, it's opportunities, it's job losses, it's pensions, it's triple locks for wealthy pensioners in enormous houses on final salary pensions, but unemployment your young people in house shares
It might be the right approach but that’s not at all “obvious,” and the question has philosophical, ethical, and political roots. Do we immunize the most vulnerable to make sure they’re taken care of or do we immunize the most likely spreaders to reduce the risk to everyone, including the most vulnerable, relatively equally? How do you weigh in existing precautions, ongoing changes to those precautions, financial struggles, and employment demands to these decisions? Do we focus on regions currently most affected or do we roll it out equally? There are a million questions like these and the choices aren’t all obvious.
Your post is unnecessarily hostile, ignorant, and insensitive. I knew someone who died of the disease. He was half my age and I’m too young to be eligible for the vaccine. Not all young people “brush it off.”
> It might be the right approach but that’s not at all “obvious,”
1. When the vaccine roll-out was started, there was no proof that it prevented infection - only that it prevented death and serious illness and hospitalisation.
2. In the UK it is estimated that having the vaccine in the first wave and vaccinating the priority groups woudl have saved over 90% of deaths that occurred.
(1) is a good argument for why you should start there when you have that ignorance. (2) is a meaningless hypothetical that does not describe the current situation. Neither addresses even some of the example questions I’ve raised which don’t even cover the space of questions which should be considered.
If you think the answers are “obvious”, you’re either ignoring relevant questions or you are filling in answers with your own assumptions.
I find this blend of comments disheartening and disappointing, mainly because they appear to come from a place of willful ignorance.
Please try not to forget that the reason all covid-19 vaccination programmes have been rolled out progressively from the older to younger segments of the population is due to the fact that:
a) vaccines are in short supply, thus mass vaccination programs demand a rational approach to maximize it's effectiveness in lowering covid-19 deaths,
b) all covid-19 vaccination programmes prioritize vaccinating at-risk groups within their population,
c) covid-19 is patently known to have a considerably high fatality rate on older segments of the population, while on younger segments of the population it's negligible.
Let's not feign ignorance here. Covid-19 kills old people in spades while young people just brush it off. If you care about loved ones and aren't happy with he idea of seeing your elders die from covid-19 then it's obvious why said elders are moved to the front of the queue to get vaccinated.
This should be so obvious that should require no explanation. Then again basic steps to safeguard the health and well-being of others, such as the ridiculous anti-mask militancy, is sadly a thing. So it's clear that many among us simply care nothing about any issue that does not involve them directly and are so self-centered that interpret basic care for others as an affront to their personal privileges.