I am not adverse to sick humour. But if yer gonna spit sick jokes, have the decency to be funny.
Ciao
Et tu Brute! Wasn't going for funny, just irony.
I found your man's suggestion to the daughter of a 90+ year-old woman that a pill to ease the pain and not a needed operation for an otherwise healthy senior neither decent, compassionate or funny. Amazing the difference between then and now.
When Obamacare was being rammed through, "end of life conversations", aka "death panels", were thought to be "smart" policy in realization that medical costs in a universal health plan would need to be capped (aka as rationing). Young people had a long life ahead of them to contribute; old folks, well, been there, done that, unless, of course, they were parents or family of the ruling class.
As a senior citizen with complicating factors, I don't find it reassuring nor noble that now your side is willing to put the world in a deep economic depression purportedly to "save" old people like me. Whatever level of security is being offered, the loss of personal freedom more than offsets it, not to say anything of the cost and lost opportunities that my children and grandchildren will bear for the demands that way too many people place on government. We do get the government we deserve, and I am afraid that this surprise is not going to end well.
Lou,
You have made a leap of logic here. While it is true that you and I are apparently more at risk because of age, that does NOT mean that the security measures in place in the US and around the world are intended primarily "save" you and me. We are just a clearly identifiable demographic; we're not the point.
The goal, of course, is to save as many people as possible, not only from the virus, but other people who necessarily get a lower standard of care when and if the healthcare system becomes overwhelmed. That includes accident victims, cancer patients, heart attack victims, childhood illnesses, and on and on.
Case in point for you to consider: A friend in GA was diagnosed with thyroid cancer on March 18th, and advised that she should have surgery asap to remove her thyroid immediately. The best cancer treatment center available to her would normally be Emory, but Emory had NO room due to Covid patients, and the first two surgeons she contacted were both in quarantine themselves. There was a domino effect from that; the next several surgeons had no availability even for a pre-op appointment for several weeks. Had she stayed in Atlanta, it would have been at least another month before surgery would have been possible, simply because the Atlanta healthcare system has been strained beyond it's capacity.
So she and her husband came to Durham, which has had a stay-at-home order in place for much longer, and where the infection numbers and increase rates are similar to S. Korea (the mayor's estimate, not mine). Once she had tested negative for Covid, she was able to have the surgery at Duke, with the surgeon of her choice, less than a week after arriving.
I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between the two standards of care in this one example, and fortunately for my friends, money was no object; they could travel, pay for lodging and food, and they had me and my wife to make grocery and dinner runs, etc. What might have happened to them because of the virus had Duke and Durham not been proactive with the virus back in mid-March, or if their financial circumstances been different is not pleasant to think about. And how many around the country are finding themselves in that situation?
So if you and I are "saved" that'll be fine, but that is NOT the point of what the US, or any other country for that matter, is attempting to accomplish with shut downs. And the simplistic idea of opening parts of the country like particular states, or areas of states, or segments of the population, suffers from the same flaws as most simplistic solutions to complex problems.