Should Schools and Universities Be Closed for 14 Days?

What are your thoughts on this?

" Scott Morrison says Australian schools should remain open for the time being, despite growing calls for them to shut to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
Speaking after a special national cabinet meeting today to decide what course of action the nation should take to slow the spread of the disease, Mr Morrison said shutting schools down would do more harm than good.
"People are naturally anxious about the issues of schools," he said.
"As the British chief medical officer observed over the last couple of days, the issue of wide scale closure of schools, and it may seem counter-intuitive, but the advice is this could be a very negative thing in terms of impacting on how these (epidemic) curves operate, for two reasons.
"When you take children out of school and put them back in the broader community, the ability for them to potentially engage with others increases that risk. That's the understanding we had.
"Also issues of herd immunity which relate to children. The other is the disruption impact that could have and put at great risk the availability of critical workers such as nurses, doctors and others who are essential in the community because they would have to remain home and look after their children.
"So while it may seem counterintuitive, there (are) very good reasons why you would not be moving to broadscale closures of schools. That could make the situation worse, not better.
"The states and territories are not moving in that direction."
The PM said the matter would be reassessed on Friday."

Poll Options

  • 588
    YES.. Let's stop the spread of COVID19
  • 243
    NO.. I agree with Scomo
  • 16
    I don't care


  • +9

    They were talking about it on morning tv

    Closing schools too early has no real benefit and can make it worse when the 14 days end - it has to be done when there are more cases or in combination with closing businesses

    • +28

      This graph shows how the chance of infection changes depending on the number of cases in the community versus the size of the gathering.

      It has a lot of assumptions, but I think the calculations are right. Note log scales.
      The take home for me is that the chance of infection from a place like a school (more or less 1000 students typical) is quite low while there are limited infections in the general population.

      If you can't close schools indefinitely, you probably want to schedule a temporary closure to have a substantial impact - say when there are 10-20,000 cases in the general population.
      My view isn't based on absolute avoidance of infection for any individual, but on greatest 'bang for buck' for the whole community.

      So probably a bit soon.

      • -15


      • +4

        All children go to school though.

        So it only take one child to be infected and very quickly it will spread to their whole school. Then on to brothers and sisters and other schools etc

        • +14

          And on to mum and dad of the 20+ students in that class. Who go to their 40 individual workplaces. And maybe go to lunch at let's conservatively say 150 different venues within a week before they realise they're sick, and that's just themselves, never mind their coworkers. So with a 50% chance of infection within 2 hours in the same room, even if they're there for only there for 15 minutes that's at least 1 person infected per day from the food court or restaurant/cafe alone. Any idea where they're going next? Work? School? You get the idea.

          Keeping schools open is fine if those students and direct contacts are otherwise quarantined - this develops a quarantined community within itself. But this is not the case. Those people also operate outside that community, so they allow transmission outside that community. You either close schools to reduce rapid transmission OR you keep them open with every attendee quarantined outside that community until you reach either a decrease in the number of cases AND reach more than 50% recovery of known cases, with the known cases being quarantined, and students only returning once they have detectable antibodies and no virus being detected present. By that point, you've ended up with very small classes of uninfected students remaining anyway.

        • -1

          It's also rather stupid that events made by the school e.g. athletics day, swimming carnival etc. Are closed when all it is is a migrating school. That would make no sense to stop the event. Only schools aren't being closed because it's not an 'event' while being more than 1000 children in fairly close proximity. Just one cough from one kid will infect the school like dominos because they believe it is the right thing. Even if the schools closed and the kids hang out with each other outside, it's more beneficial for a smaller number to be infected rather than thousands at once.

      • +9

        I agree, the poll options are leading too which will skew the results. First there is no "stopping the spread" second, requiring people to agree with Scomo will negatively impact that result. Changing that option too "No.. I agree with the health experts advising the government" to would likely change that vote considerably.

        • -1

          what difference does it make, we can't find any TP for home.😂Let the rascals go poop at school.

        • +4

          Except ScoMo's expert is a "chief medical officer", who is paid for by the government. Whereas the AMA chiefs in each state are independent of ScoMo, and many are urging the Gov to shut down schools.

          • +1

            @donttellmeimdreaming: IMO, advice from medical professionals is important in terms of treatment and ability to handle cases.

            Spread and containment is not really a medical domain. It's more the domain of virologists and data analysts.

            That's who I'd be listening to.

      • +3

        Interesting graph. The y-axis says infection in US, so given US population is 13 times that of Australia, we should times the Australian cases by 13 is that right? i.e. 400 x 13 = 5200, so a gathering of 1000 students sits just above the 1% line on the graph based on current confirmed case numbers.

        In western countries the numbers are doubling every 2 days, so I assume by the start of next week (6 days away), the US-equivalent number in Australia is going to be 400x2x2x2x13 = 41,600. That's a 10% chance of having someone with virus in a gathering of 1000.

        So… here is my prediction, schools will be shut from next Mon onwards…

      • +2

        Nope. Close them now. Risk for a single event is meaningless since it compounds the more events you have.

        Modeling like this - exponential growth and logistic curves - should be required learning so we don't have politically motivated decision makers hoodwinking us:

        I hope I'm wrong but I fear we may end up looking at a situation that will be worse than Italy. I'm not the only one. A lot of doctors are afraid too:

        • Here here.

    • +6

      It wouldn't be for 14 days, will be many months.

      • Why the downvote? Check the Hubei lockdown, it has been going for 54 days so far.

      • +1

        I think trapper is correct, to be effective a shutdown needs to be longer than 14 days.

    • +7

      It does have a benefit. Children are more likely to be asymptomatic while contagious. Scomo dodges this fact in every public appearance he makes. Suggests the government is in fact pursuing Herd Immunity.

      The only question is how sustainable it is to shut down education if this is going to go on for 6-18 months.

      • It's very frustrating when they keep saying "kids are going to be ok" as any part of any argument for two reasons.

        1) As you've pointed out, they are carriers. Carriers are the issue at hand (now) as we try to slow its spread.

        2) Kids can and have died from COVID-19

        But I do get the idea that closing schools is unsustainable and I agree, except, we need a plan. IMO close schools while we formulate a plan. I'm not going to claim to have "the plan", but we're a resourceful nation and we'd work something out. But just throwing their hands up with "it's unsustainable" is a cop-out. It doesn't need to be sustainable, it only needs to buy us some more time to work this out.

        I think that allowing the spread to happen to quickly (by not closing everything down that we can) we're aiming for an even worse outcome - both economically and mortality.

        Our main objective right now (IMO) is to flatten the infection curve to a level that our health/medical systems can manage. At the same time increasing resources towards health/medical to cope with the inevitable increase in patients requiring cases.

        Our markets are going to suffer regardless of our action. Our current government are acting like our markets are most important thing to protect right now - at all costs - it seems.

        I don't like it.

    • +3

      Being in the education sector directly, the biggest factor affecting this decision, as I see it, will be the amount of teachers available and their ability to operate within the constraints sanitation and social distancing. In my area we have almost run out of hand sanitiser with our distributors sold out till mid April and also cleaning products to sanitise desks, chairs and computers to name a few. Social distancing within classes and at break times where classes are now staggered, is causing extra strains to teachers, students and the education provided as a whole.

      I don't see the current processes looking sustainable.

      • I agree, my mum (who's in her mid 60's) works in the sick bay at a NSW public school with kids coming in with coughs, cuts, bruises and what not on a daily basis. They too have run out of hand sanitiser and have been told by DET that they're not allowed to wear face masks even if they supply their own.

    • They were talking about it on morning tv

      Morning TV shows are the least factual sources of information ever.

      My brain explodes in fits of rage whenever I hear them talk about IT topics, say some dumb shit, all agree then one person makes a joke and they move on.

      If you get your information from morning TV shows, I would ugly recommend watching an actual news channel like ABC 24.

      It won't rot your brain or spam infomercials.

  • -1

    Yea, too soon

    • +4

      too soon ????? we are late by months now already .

  • +3

    My sister is in Switzerland, they shut down all the schools two days ago.

    Surely there are some alternatives for arranging care of children, so that the health care workers can stay at their work

    • +6

      I know, childcare centres?

      • Or stay with grandparents 🤣

        • +7


          To be fair my solution is that most teenagers can be very responsible when necessary and would stay at home without burning the house down.

          Then again I was basically raised by wolves and I turned out alright, so maybe I am biased. Do love a full moon though.

          • +1

            @ozbjunkie: "and I turned out alright"… That's very subjective ozbjunkie or should I say Romulus!

            How your brother?

            • @khomeini: I am whichever was the good one. Remus sounds a little like innuendo to me, but action is slow at the moment. I'll take it.

      • That are already full? Magically create 10,000 new child care centres

        • I think you missed the joke. if it's no good having then packed together at school, it would be no good packing them in together at a day care centre.

          Ozzy got the joke and played along, suggesting grandparents.

          Now, how about you try to continue the joke in some way to keep our spirits high in these troubling times?

    • +5

      Maybe they could be cared for in the schools that they were all in before they were closed?

      • how is that different to going to school?

        • +6

          That's my point.

      • +5

        Maybe there is a middle ground between "everyone go to school" and "all parents must stay home to mind children".
        I'm working from home, and I know many others are too. It would be no hardship to look after an additional kid during the day, and the risks of infection from having one extra person around are much smaller than sending the kids to a school of 1000.

        • +3

          If you can work and take care of under 5 year old children then my children must have too much energy 😂

    • They are also ahead having 2700 cases vs our 454.

      And have population of 8m people in a small area.

      • +5

        They are testing widely though.

        We are not. In developed countries in Europe they can actually come to test you at your house. Here we don't have enough tests and the directive is to only test people who have returned from overseas in the last 14 days, healthcare workers or those with a known high risk exposure.

  • +1

    There is just over 200 cases in Australia with a death rate of 0 for 0-9 yrs old ( 157K cases all age groups and 0 died under 9 yrs old ) and .2% for 10-39 yrs old ( 2 per 1,000) worldwide with this virus . In a nutshell younger people are quite safe with the low number of cases in this country .
    Closing the schools would send a lot of kids home to be looked after by vulnerable grand parents with the highest death rates :
    80+ years old
    70-79 years old
    60-69 years old

    • +71

      Children can still get the virus and be carriers. A child could pick it up from school and take it home to vulnerable or elderly people.

      It would be better for those kids living in those households to not go out and get it in the first place. That’s when the elderly get it. Your logic of sending them to school each day to come home to the vulnerable makes no sense.

      I’m not saying schools should close right now, but it’s important to know that just because someone may not die from it, it doesn’t mean they can’t pass it on to someone that will.

      • +3

        Then wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on the vulnerable rather than stopping schools for the youngsters? Maybe a better option is to commandeer things like hotels etc and move the vulnerable to there. Put in the best hygiene practices, get staff regularly tested, keep people in their own rooms. Provide them with all the provisions they need, internet access etc and keep them out of general circulation until the crisis passes. You are keeping kids home from school but that doesn’t stop them going out shopping with their parents etc. there are still plenty of places for them to catch a disease, and if they aren’t at school, plenty of time to roam. We can’t isolate everyone. We still need food, utilities, health services, etc. we still need to look after the vast majority of people who are not seriously affected, nor ever will be, by this disease.

        • +1

          I never said schools should close. I agree, being out in the community is just as dangerous. Schools can't close in isolation, and a full lockdown is the only way to slow the spread. However whether that is required right now is to be answered by those who better understand how this virus is spreading, not me. I will listen to those better educated in this.

          And yes, a full lockdown is difficult. It's not going to be easy, but it is not impossible.

          • @jjjaar: My issue is we don’t seem to be doing anything to isolate the vulnerable, surely they should be our highest priority now? If they are worried about not having enough respirators they are going to be the group that needs them the most, if they are infected. How long do you intend to do a full lockdown for? What happens after that?

            • +1

              @try2bhelpful: If you lockdown long enough and the virus doesn't spread, it simply dies out once infected people recover. I have no idea what long enough is. We just need to be guided by those who know more than us.

              • @jjjaar: So we have no food, no utilities, no medicines, etc. The virus will, certainly, die out when we do. Well the human variant of it anyway.

    • +1

      There is over 400 cases in Australia now. What a difference a day makes.

      • 'covids law' - number of infected doubles every 3 days.

    • +3

      You just refresh your browser and 200 extra cases already , those number are only CONFIRMED cases , not the right number yet ( which no one knows )

    • How about if you're going to directly copy other peoples comments, research and statistics from other websites and databases quote the source instead of trying to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about.

    • +9

      A 0.2% death rate means that on average almost each of the 2500 Victorian schools will see at least one student dead. It's not quite so straightforward - smaller schools may see none but larger schools might end up with two or three.

      But people need to stop being so dismissive of with "oh, it's only 0.2%". If 980,000 students all get infected over the span of a four or even six week bell curve, the hospital system will never cope, and that 0.2% will become 2%… or 20%. It will only be 0.2% if hospitals can treat those severe cases they know about at 100% efficiency. If those people are only treated at 70, or 40% efficiency, then instead of 2,000 deaths we may be talking about 20,000 deaths. In Victorian schoolchildren alone.

    • It's not just about the deaths either. People can require extensive care for a long period of time after this. Limiting care available for others

    • I won't be making recommendations because I'm not a medical expert and wish others wouldn't. The post above is completely misleading.

      Children are more likely to be asymptomatic as the body reaction to COVID-19 is relative to the amount of exposures you have had in your life to other types of Coronavirus, such as a common cold. The younger you are, the less experience you have, so your body does not have the reaction to fight it and display symptoms. You're merely a host.

    • How many kids have been isolated from grandparents due to Covid? my guess is… not many. By keeping kids away from school, we are reducing mass contagion. When all the teachers get (repeatedly) sick, who will be in school then?

      • Good point, who will run the school when the teachers are infected. Why UK closed schools now. We must stop all avenues of people coming together. Health care staff will be affected if both parents are in health care. Otherwise there is one parent to look after kids. Extreme measures required for extreme situation…close schools now and work on a sensible solution. Please don't let it spread, we can do it.

  • +12

    Considering we are two weeks out from school holidays I think they are just hoping that holding out till then isnt an issue, and then theres a two week shutdown anyway

    • +10

      What about universities? Most universities have just started the semester?

      • +11

        Don't know why I got down voted.

        Universities don't just have students, they also have businesses and provide various services to the public.

        In addition to that many university students have part-time/casual jobs.

        Also, various schools have dedicated school buses, which would help contain an outbreak. Uni students, however, only have access to public transport.

        If an outbreak occurs at a university doesn't that mean that it has a higher chance of spreading to the general public due to uni students having more interactions with the general public because they having part-time/casual jobs and the university is also being open to the public?

        • +4

          Universities have all the infrastructure there to facilitate online learning - the only exception being practical classes/labs, but that could be countered with lecturers/tutors filming a demonstration of the experiment/task.

          Most lecture attendance is low, and students choose to stream it at another time anyway. In the USA a lot of colleges have gone to online mode for the rest of the semester.

          Yes, it's not ideal and certainly not the best way to learn, and would impact on students' abilities to form social connections - particularly first year students. But, online learning would keep a significant number of people off-campus, at home and off public transport - as many major university campuses don't have adequate parking or uni students cannot afford a car, so a switch to online classes would help to minimise the amount of people on public transport spreading their germs.

          • +2

            @Fake News:

            Most lecture attendance is low, and students choose to stream it at another time anyway

            Yep. Uni students can get by with skipping classes anyway - the only problem is practicals/labs. Unis need to tick off certain criteria when it comes to giving out certain qualifications, so it's not always as simple as just filming the lab and putting it online. I'm sure they can figure out a solution though, postponing the labs/assessments shouldn't be too hard to do.

      • Our tutor that we hired told us their Uni has moved everything online.

    • +1

      Don't know where you're based but we are four weeks away from public school holidays in NSW, where the number of infections is highest.

      • Victoria, next week is last week of school.
        Fed govt can't even align the Term dates 😂

    • 2 weeks is a lomg time for this virus to spread exponentially. Look at Italy and spain 2 weeks ago as example

      • We will have over 10k cases in two weeks.

    • Ah, the old thoughts and prayers technique.

  • +20

    Here is an article where a social scientist and physician at Yale University is interviewed about reactive (after outbreak) and proactive (before outbreak) school closures.

    There was a wonderful paper published that analyzed data regarding the Spanish flu in 1918, examining proactive versus reactive school closures. When did [regional] authorities close the schools relative to when the epidemic was spiking? What they found was that proactive school closing saved substantial numbers of lives.

  • +19

    I think schools should be closed.

    Children shouldn’t be expected to properly exercise all elements of virus prevention control, and it’s silly to think that they will. It’s unfair to also expect teachers to monitor all of their students to ensure no touching, sharing of foods, etc.

    I remember when I was a kid, I was a slob. I had no real sense of preventing disease from spreading.

    That we’ve seen adults sharing microphones during press conferences for COVID19, as well as shaking hands, and touching their faces, I think it really shows that ensuring children aren’t in a position to spread this virus is going to be a losing battle.

    Sporting events have been cancelled, as they are mass gatherings. Schools are mass gatherings on a daily basis.

    What it really boils down to is risk vs reward. If they shut schools, parents will have to take time off of work, or organise someone to look after their kids, which will impact jobs, and the economy. The government is hoping that the virus won’t spread that much even though schools are still open, but it will definitely spread through schools if they remain open, I think that’s just inevitable.

    • +2

      The argument that makes sense to me is that when schools close, the kids have to go somewhere to be taken care of - either with grandparents (increase their risk) or with parents - which means parents need to take time off work. The biggest impact of that is on the health profession - if some nurses and doctors need to stay home to look after their kids, how will an already struggling health system cope with the reduced numbers.

      • +29

        Well if the kids are pulled out now and looked after by grandparents while it's still "early", chances are they aren't infected and cause no problems.

        Eventually the kids when stuck in school will infect each other then what? Then you stop school? Now suddenly the risk to grandparents/their parents is much higher because maybe 20% of the kids at school have the virus by the time we stop school. Or do you keep those kids going to school infecting all the poor sods on public transport even after they're infected?

        We should be doing everything to minimize people movement/spread of the virus and yes it will inconvenience a vast majority of us and our lives but it needs to happen or we'll be like Italy, Spain or worse.

        Also they didn't even shut down universities (or force them to do online courses exclusively). Not like those guys/gals need their parents/grandparents to look after them.

        • +1

          The problem is that there is still uncertainty around how long children can be asymptomatic, so could pass things on to at risk people now. General recommendations are to limit contact with the elderly and at risk from now.

          World Health Organisation acknowledge that there needs to be a balance between prevention and control, sustainable economic and social growth. There's no argument that we could shut down everything tomorrow for a month with the sole purpose to combat this, but peoples lives would be ruined.

    • Schools in or around suburbs with community spread should definitely be closed. They should have those whole areas locked-down already.

  • +11

    and yet the border remains open, albeit now with 14days quarantine (which should've been done before shit hits the fan)

    • +3

      They should just close it altogether to non-residents.

      I mean what kind of tourist is going to come here on holiday to sit in quarantine for 2 weeks. Only those who plan to ignore the quarantine I bet.

    • +1

      14days self isolation = 2-3 days later roaming around under the radar.

  • I think there is other things to shut down 1st before schools. In an ideal world yes but people have bills to pay. I hope the prime minister doesn't visit any schools in the next 14 days.

  • +13

    It will happen.

    A lot of decisions being made are about public confidence and it doesn't take much to realise lockdown is the eventuality. They're currently padding the measures so it doesn't seem to "extreme" if we went from yesterday's stance of "don't panic" to a full blown "LOCKDOWN!".

    Those who have virtue signalled a whole bunch against hoarding and stockpiling are probably doing the very thing they were condemning.

    It is not the end of the world but just because things have been fine for so long, people have gotten complacent. This is reality - we save money for a rainy day, why not food?

    The schools will not just shut down but a proper lockdown will is imminent.

    • -1

      Na, its even more simple than that close all uni's permanently, then the housing crisis ends and we will have plenty of stock, so now become more affordable.

      Given most uni courses are a waste of time for getting a job, and all it does is debt burden most who do the course.

      Then set up vocation training through TAFEs for things like Docs, Nurses etc

      BTW lets not get too serious 🤩 we do need a laugh or two

      Given the loaded voting options which infers that Scomo(Govt) isn't serious about stopping the spread.

      Simple unbiased options would be just address the original headline question. (basic market research)

      Should Schools and Universities Be Closed for 14 Days?


      Dont care/undecided

    • +1

      I agree, it's just a matter of when.

      The earlier the better, we could still avoid a nationwide lockdown if the areas with community spread were quarantined asap.

      But I don't see this happening, they will wait till we have 10k cases all over the show, then panic and lockdown the whole country.

  • -2

    YES… and these universities enticing OS students into the country should be sued

    • Sued for?

      You make many posts about legal threats, practically all are unsubstantiated and many of your legal "advice" doesn't just border on illegal but are actually criminal.

  • +2

    Had an interesting chat with a teenager this morning. He drew parallels between climate change and COVID-19 and was wondering why he should care how COVID-19 affects boomers , if they have never cared about how climate change is going to affect his generation. The more boomers succumb to this virus , the less resistance there will be to taking real actions against climate change. He kind of does have a point.

    • +15

      He kind of does have a point.

      No he doesn't, its worse that you agree and in effect promote it. You should be ashamed.

      No only that but the ones at greatest risk are not even boomers. They born before and during the war (boomers were born later!!)

      • -1

        I didn't tell him I agreed with him but I do think he has a valid point.

        • +7

          If you think its valid that someone should die because they have a different opinion from you, that you are a very sorry individual.

          The ones most likely to die are the ones who fought in the war to allow people to live here and under a society that didnt allow people to be exterminated for having different opinions

          • +7

            @RockyRaccoon: Which war, mate? We are currently the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII so the people who ”fought” in the war would be well into the 90s. There are probably 13,000 WWII vets still alive, based on the figures, I’ve seen. I would hazard a guess that the next 5 years will see most of those removed from the scene. People die all the time, who could be saved, but we do nothing about it. There are children dying in refugee camps around the world and our Government doesn’t give a stuff. The 90 year olds have lived a good long life and, I suspect, they live every day with a bunch of health problems. I’m late 50s and my aches and pains are racking up. Having known people old enough to have served in this period a fair number of them would’ve been very happy for people to be exterminated who had a difference of opinion from them. They had some definite “views” on foreigners for a start.

            We may well get to the point where decisions need to be made on scarce resources, e.g. ventilators. I don’t think someone in their 90s is going to get a priority over a younger person. Frankly our medical people make these decisions every day. As a general rule we don’t spend millions to keep one individual alive. Me, I’m resigned to whatever hand fate deals me. I had a melanoma removed 20 years ago so, I figure, I’m on borrowed time anyway. If there is a ventilator going then I hope they help me live but if it means a 20 year old dies I don’t like my chances.

            The kid has a point. We are busily stuffing up the world and the kids will be the main ones to suffer. In the abstract losing a few million humans would be very good for the world. Not saying I would bump a bunch of people off but, let’s face it, what the earth isn’t short of, at the moment, is people. That doesn’t make me a “sorry individual” it makes me someone who can the the reality separate to the sentiment and can look at the holistic position.

            Everyone who has ever lived has died. We can postpone it but the man with the scythe turns up eventually.

            • +1

              @try2bhelpful: So some Boomers(of which you are one), some war veterans and some other older people had/have bad attitudes to people like you claim, means that all can be eliminated?

              Much of the laws enacted to change this were implemented by people of the same age like you.

              And our government and people are responsible for the lives of everyone in a refugee camp somewhere on the planet. Really now you are drawing a weird parallel.

              Read the first post JJB, says that the young person's opinion they agree with is that old people deserve this as they didn't support climate change action.

              Thats just as bad as someone saying Purple people deserve to die because they think different from Orange people.

              Its not necessary and its a sad reflection on those who say it. Frankly age discrimination is just as offensive as Racial discrimination.

              The reality is that old people are going to die, young ones are very unlikely to need a ventilator.

              • +5

                @RockyRaccoon: No, what I was pointing out was how pointless your comment was about war veterans. There is 13,000, at most, and they are over 90. You are the person who gave them a “spurious” reason for why they fought in WWII. All I did was point out, if you actually met some of them, was how wrong you would, often, be.

                Laws enacted to change what attitudes? You might want to have a good look at how late a lot of our discrimination laws are. The point is not all Boomers are bastards but some really are. Don’t try to sugar coat their lives and motives. Don’t look at them with Sepia toned doey eyes. For a start they would think you are an idiot.

                You talk about me saying that people who are different shouldn’t die, whilst blithely condemning other people to death because it isn’t our concern. Personally I think a child in a refugee camp deserves a better chance at life rather than putting on a couple more years for a 95 and above year old. Nature is ageist, the above 90 don’t tend to live very long.

                You really think, by the end of this, that young people aren’t going to need ventilators? If so then you, obviously, haven’t been listening to the medical reports in the press. They are very frightened they are going to need to make the call. Have a look at what the reports are coming out of Italy, they are already considering the triage protocol. If they really cared about the aged we would be seeing a massive push to isolate them rather than people talking about schools and universities.

                The reality is old people are going to die, it is how nature is built. When push comes to shove, and there are scarce resources available, it would be foolish to assign them to someone in their 90s rather than someone in their 20s.

                • @try2bhelpful: Look buddy you have taken the whole discussioon off on your own tangent and I wont argue with you on that because that wasnt what I was talking about. . My point on the WW2 veterans and war babies, was that JJB thought it was ok these people die because in his words he thought boomers should suffer because they caused global warming etc.

                  My point was 1. Boomers were not in the highest risk group, albiet higher than a 20-30 year old. and its the preboomers that will die mainly. (boomers being under 75)

                  Now you think thats ok, but for a different reason - ie they have lived a full life etc fair enough for you.The reality is they are going to be adversly affected, and yes if there is a shortage of ventilators etc I too would accept choices like that need to be made.

                  My point 2. was that the belief that because they - collectively - are supposed to be against climate change policies which JJB believes in, and this is retribution for that, is dangerous ground if people believe that.

                  as you say

                  The point is not all Boomers are bastards but some really are

                  Just like
                  Some men are
                  Some women are
                  Some straight people are
                  Some gay people are

                  etc etc

                  • +12

                    @RockyRaccoon: Don’t call me buddy, mate.

                    You are the one who strayed off the original Boomer discussion to talk about the WWII veterans. Maybe I should’ve said some “old people are bastards” rather than just boomers just to fit within your literal interpretations.

                    The point the kid was making is that all generations are dependent on each other so each has an obligation to support the other. If we are selling the kids future why should they be concerned about our present? He isn’t talking about killing people himself, just that he doesn’t really want to bother looking after us if we can’t be bothered worrying about his future. A sort of benign neglect.

                    This was the musings of a teenager on the unfairness of society. You make it sound like He is about to go “son of Sam”. Just because we think the kid has a point does not mean we are encouraging him to turn up at old people’s homes with contaminated blankets. My suggestion is step back, think about the actual point the kid was making and think laterally rather than literally. Get some, sodding, perspective,

                  • +1


                    JJB thought it was ok these people die because in his words he thought boomers should suffer because they caused global warming etc.

                    I was paraphrasing what the teen said. When I came back from Shanghai in Jan, I went into voluntary self-isolation. My wife who came back from Japan went into voluntary self-isolation on Friday. We would never wilfully put someone's life in danger. Nor I believe would this teenager.

                    What try2bhelful said above is an apt summation of our conversation, despite not being privy to it.

                    • +6

                      @DisabledUser102420: It wasn’t hard to guess the conversation: most of us have been on either side of the discussion before. The COVID-19 virus is going to get bad but it will only be for a relatively short time and severely impact a, relatively, small number of us; the rest have to deal with the aftermath..The issue of global warming is still the elephant in the room waiting to stomp us when we come through the tunnel. I think it is all related. Humans are too stupid to get out of their own way with their treatment of the food sources, the pollution, the waste, the insatiable need to consume everything with little thought for the rest of the planet. If we had been more cautious, and thoughtful, we may well have avoided this. We need to learn.

                      If we reach tipping point for Global warming then we will be looking at single digit survivors rather than single digit afflicted. We are so worried about getting out of the way of a scooter we don’t see the train heading our way. The irony is the virus is helping to ease the global warming thing. People are travelling less, consuming less, producing less. We are actually doing the “live simply so others can simply live”. There was a study that showed fish stocks around the UK replenished during WWII because the fisherman couldn’t go out in large numbers. I hope scientists are looking into the long term affects of what is happening to the planet whilst we hunker down it will be interesting to see if there is hope of a way back. Maybe the targets won’t be such an issue to meet. The trouble is our monkey brains fixate on the flash of orange being a tiger rather than noticing it means the tree we are in is on fire.

                      • @luffyex2010: Arigato :)

                • @try2bhelpful:

                  When push comes to shove, and there are scarce resources available, it would be foolish to assign them to someone in their 90s rather than someone in their 20s.

                  People in their 90's have little agency in this world, they are reliant on our generation to take care of them.

                  Part of that is ensuring we don't let a flipping pandemic spread freely throughout the whole country and wipe them out.

                  • +1

                    @trapper: The pandemic is coming. We should be doing more to isolate the people who will be most affected but we aren’t. Instead we keep getting people blathering on about schools and universities. If a toddler is near the road you move the toddler, you don’t try and stop all the cars.

                    I’m nearly 60 and I can see, if resources get tight, that the best option is for the ones who will be young and healthy, once they get a little help, than someone who has already lead a full life and has underlying health issues. It is common sense. It is also a decision that is already made daily. There are very few old people in line for organ transplants or extensive chemo. The rule is, generally, keep the, comfortable and manage them down.

                    • @try2bhelpful:

                      We should be doing more to isolate the people who will be most affected but we aren’t.

                      I agree, bring on the lockdown asap.

            • @try2bhelpful:

              so the people who ”fought” in the war would be well into the 90s.

              Yes… exactly his point isn't it?

        • +6

          The point is completely valid. The point isn't - "boomers must die!", the point is…
          "Why should I give a crap about boomers, they don't give a crap about me."

          • @stumo:

            "Why should I give a crap about boomers, they don't give a crap about me."

            This is what teenagers believe.

            "Mom and dad don't care about me."

            Just because they think it is true doesn't make it so.

            Just because some of the older generations behave thoughtlessly doesn't make the entire generation culpable.

Login or Join to leave a comment