It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Elderly should be low priority for antivirals, says scientist

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Elderly should be low priority for antivirals, says scientist




Elderly people with swine flu should be treated as the lowest priority for antiviral drugs in a bid to preserve stocks for the younger population, according to new research. The controversial view was published yesterday by an Italian scientist who claimed that distributing drugs such as Tamiflu to those over 65 has little effect on the spread of the infection or on mortality rates.
(visit the link for the full news article)

The link is not working with the URL code, so here it is.
www.theherald.co.uk...

[edit on 29-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

 


Removed bad link - stretching page

[edit on 29/7/09 by masqua]




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Even thou it might be good news since noone over 65 will be forced to vaccinate I see this as a sign of things to come.

President Obama himself has stated something similar, that it might be better for the government not to allow elder people to have treatments or operations if under the Obama healthcare the government takes control, and if the government thinks it is too expensive, or the treatment or operation "might' not work.

Now we are seeing other influential people on the other side of the world spousing a similar idea, that elder people are not worth the time and effort in the brave new world.

Is this the kind of future we have in store for our elderly?

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 29-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

 


Same edit as above

[edit on 29/7/09 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


What age classes are unproductive to society? The youth and the elderly. The youth have future potential to contribute, whereas the elderly, for all intents and purposes, have nothing tangible left to contribute. So, with that being said, they SHOULD be lowest priority.

Just my 2-cents



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Funny you should say that and express support for a national healthcare system in that other thread.

Nazi much?


[edit on 29-7-2009 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Funny you should say that and express support for a national health care system in that other thread.

Nazi much?


I'm not sure which thread you speak of. BUT, those are not conflicting ideologies. I believe in national health care...but also believe that when medication is in a shortage, then the elderly should be at the bottom of the list of those who should receive it.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 



They are still alive for crying out loud... just because they are older it is no excuse to put them earlier in their graves. Hitler also had similar treatments for the ill/old, the mentally unstable, as well as other "undesirables", to put them in the grave as soon as possible....

Your parents will soon enough be 65, and you will as well, i wonder if by then you will be so uninterested as to what happens to elderly people...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Does anyone else think the elderly are low-priority because they are too old to revolt, and will die soon anyways? (I mean that in as non-callous a way as possible).

The government would rather use their precious Tamiflu supply to poison the younger generations. It's more cost effective that way. In 50 years, 99.999% of everyone over 65 will be dead anyway.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by drwizardphd
 


It's not because they're too old to revolt. If voting mattered they're plenty of elderly to thwart or pass just about anything.

What matters to the gov is that they arent pulling their share-cropper weight anymore. They arent producing any income for the system.

Sort of like having a farm hand who lost his arms in a thresher. Just shoot him in the field because his value is gone. We're all farmhands to gov.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Aggie Man
 



They are still alive for crying out loud... just because they are older it is no excuse to put them earlier in their graves. Hitler also had similar treatments for the ill/old, the mentally unstable, as well as other "undesirables", to put them in the grave as soon as possible....

Your parents will soon enough be 65, and you will as well, i wonder if by then you will be so uninterested as to what happens to elderly people...


Well, if there is enough medication to go around, then perscribe it to the elderly...But NEVER at the expense of passing over the producers & future producers...makes no sense...and my parents are 65+...it still does not change the way I feel. IDEALLY, there would be enough to go around...but if not...we have to draw the line somewhere...and the elderly, terminally ill, "lifer" convicts, etc. should be where that line starts at.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Even thou it might be good news since noone over 65 will be forced to vaccinate I see this as a sign of things to come.

President Obama himself has stated something similar, that it might be better for the government not to allow elder people to have treatments or operations if under the Obama healthcare the government takes control, and if the government thinks it is too expensive, or the treatment or operation "might' not work.

Now we are seeing other influential people on the other side of the world spousing a similar idea, that elder people are not worth the time and effort in the brave new world.

Is this the kind of future we have in store for our elderly?

(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 29-7-2009 by ElectricUniverse]


No it's just that this form of flu does not affect as many older people. And therefore they aren't a priority.

After all the headline says "low priority", not "get lost old folks"

For seasonal flu older people will always be a priority for vaccinnations until we have a better way to cure the disease.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by john124]

 


Removed bad link in quote

[edit on 29/7/09 by masqua]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


What age classes are unproductive to society? The youth and the elderly. The youth have future potential to contribute, whereas the elderly, for all intents and purposes, have nothing tangible left to contribute. So, with that being said, they SHOULD be lowest priority.

Just my 2-cents


WOW,



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


What age classes are unproductive to society? The youth and the elderly. The youth have future potential to contribute, whereas the elderly, for all intents and purposes, have nothing tangible left to contribute. So, with that being said, they SHOULD be lowest priority.

Just my 2-cents


WOW,

I just read the above, and am totally without words right now..
How would people feel if the elderly said that the youth are complete morons, selfish, heartless, lazy, self serving, unmoral, and have nothing to contribute to society except to think everyone owes them a living, and they should be the lowest priority????
Besides the above, I would advise that no one take the swine flu shot!!!! Maybe it's the youth they are trying to do away with..hummm?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MissysWorld
 

WOW, I'm surprised that people find what I said above appalling. The article the OP was referring to states

"Elderly people with swine flu should be treated as the lowest priority for antiviral drugs in a bid to preserve stocks for the younger population".

Is what I said really that appalling, or is it just a tough bit of reality to swallow?

What should we do? Give medication out on a first come, first serve basis? If we did that, know who would get all the medication? The elderly/retired, as they actually have the time on their hands to be the first in line...That ain't right.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I love my grandparents dearly but I agree with the elderly as being our lowest priority. If I was 95 I would not want them to waste a vaccine on me when I have the largest chance of dying any day even without the swine flu.

Because of medical services our elderly are already living WAY longer then they naturally should. I personally think medical care should be reserved for those under 70, because anybody older are a drain to our society. Its sad, but its true. Their only purpose is to die.

They cannot reproduce. They cannot work. They cost unimaginable amounts of money in heath care.

I hope to god I'm dead before I'm 70. No way would I ever want to become a shell of a human being, only waiting to die.

If we could save our children by letting the elderly die, I wouldn't even think twice about it. They have had their whole life to enjoy, seen everything they are going to see, watched their children grow into wonderful parents, and now its time for them to move on. But, because of current medical technology, too many elderly are already being kept alive much longer then they should.

If people had it their way, they would keep every old person alive for as long as possible, no matter how much of a drain to our system they are. No matter if it means the death of thousands of children. No matter if keeping them alive serves no purpose other then their selfish desire.

We have to draw the line, and the elderly SHOULD be the first to go. When somebody is no longer a asset to society (yea they tell good stories and make good company, but honestly that's about their whole existence) and is going to be dead soon anyway its a simple choice.

I wish I was old just so I could not seem like someone who wants to watch millions of elderly die. I dont. Its just that if we have to make a choice, between our young and promising or our old and dying, I wouldn't even have to think about it.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by MissysWorld
 

WOW, I'm surprised that people find what I said above appalling. The article the OP was referring to states

"Elderly people with swine flu should be treated as the lowest priority for antiviral drugs in a bid to preserve stocks for the younger population".

Is what I said really that appalling, or is it just a tough bit of reality to swallow?

What should we do? Give medication out on a first come, first serve basis? If we did that, know who would get all the medication? The elderly/retired, as they actually have the time on their hands to be the first in line...That ain't right.

First let me say this.. I know someone here in the states, who is a Director of Infectious Diseases etc...He told me last week, that even if they have the swine flu shot available by fall, there is NOT enough for the population. He told me how much has been ordered, and says that those getting the shots 1st will be all health care workers, hosp. workers, teachers, etc., anyone having to do with Public Service. He said that by the time those ppl AND thier families get thier shots there will be almost none leftover for the rest of the population. He also said when that happens, and it will, ppl will riot the streets when they find out they prolly wont get one...
For me..I wouldnt take this shot in a million years..I think it's pure bullcrap, nothing more than a money maker for some BIG companies, and our Goverment should not be trusted when it comes to this...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I think people just can't face the facts. I believe with the population ever increasing and resources continue to dwindle, there are going to be some very hard decisions to be made regarding life on this planet by our entrusted leaders.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 





What should we do? Give medication out on a first come, first serve basis? If we did that, know who would get all the medication? The elderly/retired, as they actually have the time on their hands to be the first in line...That ain't right.


If that wasn't so sad a statement it would be utterly laughable. Well no, it IS utterly laughable. Given a lot of thought to this have you? You quote the elderly, the terminally ill, lifer convicts....but what about the disabled, blind, deaf, downs syndrome, quadraplegics, anyone with a serious disease, gays, the obese...or in fact anyone who is not young, working and in the peak of health. Incidentally, one can be in the peak of health and young and still be utterly useless to a civilised society merely by dint of utter stupidity, as is evidenced.
Anyway, the elderly will probably have the last laugh by not taking that rubbish.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Mudman21
 


Im sorry, didn't they just mislay half a trillion? How many billions more have strangely disappeared. They could pay for health for everyone ten times over without blinking if they wished to...just as every single person in this world could be fed, watered and housed.
It won't be too long before each of you young and oh so productive people get old...I hope you enjoy your fate.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


What ever happened to survival of the fittest? With world population growth at an exponential rate, is it no wonder that world resources are a hotly fought after commodity? Demand exceeding supply is natures way of curbing population growth...AND I for one say protect the world's "assets" first...And the sick, elderly, mentally challenged, etc. are NOT the world's greatest assets. I am a compassionate person, believe it or not. BUT when talking about rationing medication...the medication HAS to go to those that will be the most benefit to the betterment of the global society.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The H1N1 virus is most leathal to those with a strong immune system. Pulmonary complications due to Cytokine storm as the bodies own immune defence attacks the virus. Having said that, also the very young and those with existing complications, such as, Asthma/Bronchitis, Diabetes, Heart conditions, and pregnant women. All have compromised immune defence.

Here in Scotland, it is the theory that people over the age of 62 years would likely have immunity/resistance due to exposure to the Avian Flu outbreak of 1957. Also,from the age of around 45 years the immune system slows.

My mother had Asian flu when she was young. She thought she was going to die. She has never had so much as a cold, never mind a flu since then. The side-effect of this is that she is quite unsympathetic to the sick!

However, with regard to the discussion of how the elderly are treated within the NHS, I heard that if someone presents at the hospital with a cardiac condition and are over 70 years of age, they are likely to be sent to the geriatric ward rather than immediately seen by a cardiologist!




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join