NationStates Jolt Archive

I read this articel on AOL a couple of minutes ago and I thought it was rather interesting.

CHICAGO (May 5) - Doctors know some patients needing lifesaving care won't get it in a flu pandemic or other disaster. The gut-wrenching dilemma will be deciding who to let die.

Now, an influential group of physicians has drafted a grimly specific list of recommendations for which patients wouldn't be treated. They include the very elderly, seriously hurt trauma victims, severely burned patients and those with severe dementia.


The suggested list was compiled by a task force whose members come from prestigious universities, medical groups, the military and government agencies. They include the Department of Homeland Security, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The proposed guidelines are designed to be a blueprint for hospitals "so that everybody will be thinking in the same way" when pandemic flu or another widespread health care disaster hits, said Dr. Asha Devereaux. She is a critical care specialist in San Diego and lead writer of the task force report.

The idea is to try to make sure that scarce resources - including ventilators, medicine and doctors and nurses - are used in a uniform, objective way, task force members said.

Their recommendations appear in a report appearing Monday in the May edition of Chest, the medical journal of the American College of Chest Physicians.

"If a mass casualty critical care event were to occur tomorrow, many people with clinical conditions that are survivable under usual health care system conditions may have to forgo life-sustaining interventions owing to deficiencies in supply or staffing," the report states.

To prepare, hospitals should designate a triage team with the Godlike task of deciding who will and who won't get lifesaving care, the task force wrote. Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:

-- People older than 85.

-- Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings.

-- Severely burned patients older than 60.

-- Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer's disease.

-- Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes.

Dr. Kevin Yeskey, director of the preparedness and emergency operations office at the Department of Health and Human Services, was on the task force. He said the report would be among many the agency reviews as part of preparedness efforts.

http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/who-should-not-be-saved-in-a-pandemic/20080505092509990001

So, Generalites, I ask you the same question:

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

Please, don't flame or troll. Kudasai!!!:p

I read this articel on AOL a couple of minutes ago and I thought it was rather interesting.



http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/who-should-not-be-saved-in-a-pandemic/20080505092509990001

So, Generalites, I ask you the same question:

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

Please, don't flame or troll. Kudasai!!!:p

IQ and degrees should be taken into account, I believe: The smarter people should be treated first.

Well I would want to save myself obviously, so I vote for anyone and everyone who isn't me.

IQ and degrees should be taken into account, I believe: The smarter people should be treated first.

Not necessarily. If the shit really hits the fan, I bet the tradespeople who built the sewer system will be more useful than the engineers who designed it.

Please, don't flame or troll. Kudasai!!!:p

Damnit, I was going to post that we should only save white christians as a joke, but then I read that. And it made me sad.:(

Not necessarily. If the shit really hits the fan, I bet the tradespeople who built the sewer system will be more useful than the engineers who designed it.

Maybe, but we get into enough trouble as it is by letting dumb people VOTE, I wanted to watch THEM get the ax for once.

Those who aren't likely to survive even if they get treatment. Harsh, but desperate times and all that. Other than that? Hmmmm. Patients who'll take up a disproportionate amount of medical worker's time/effort/supplies. Not sure what would count as disproportionate, not a doctor or anything.

I read this articel on AOL a couple of minutes ago and I thought it was rather interesting.



http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/who-should-not-be-saved-in-a-pandemic/20080505092509990001

So, Generalites, I ask you the same question:

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

Please, don't flame or troll. Kudasai!!!:p

Don't most healthy people survive the flu, anyway?

Everyone else should be saved in accordance with their ability to pay for the cure.

Don't most healthy people survive the flu, anyway?

Everyone else should be saved in accordance with their ability to pay for the cure.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Thank you.

Just ask them if they voted for Bush the second time. The first time can be forgiven. Not the second time. If they say yes, they die.

EDIT: Note, this is not trolling, Im 100% serious.

I read this articel on AOL a couple of minutes ago and I thought it was rather interesting.



http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/who-should-not-be-saved-in-a-pandemic/20080505092509990001

So, Generalites, I ask you the same question:

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

Please, don't flame or troll. Kudasai!!!:p

I hate to tell you, but this kind of thing happens a lot. It usually has to do with health insurance. So, I say it'll come down to who's got the better HMO.

Don't most healthy people survive the flu, anyway?

Everyone else should be saved in accordance with their ability to pay for the cure.

Pfft, so nice to see you'd be willing to condemn your future for the present. In any apocalyptic or pandemic situation like that, the most useful people are the ones who should be prioritized. Engineers, scientists, doctors, people who have the hardest thing to replace in a short period of time, skills and knowledge.

Rich people can save themselves, they can afford it. The rest of humanity will need the ones capable of keeping things going after the crisis is over.

After all, if you're such a proponent of the "you're only rich because you're capable and hardworking" fallacy, the rich should be capable of curing themselves without needing special treatment.

Don't most healthy people survive the flu, anyway?

Everyone else should be saved in accordance with their ability to pay for the cure.

In the 1918 flu, it was primarily the healthy people who caught it and died. Their robust immune systems overreacted, and they drowned in their own fluids. Should another pandemic flu like that occur, the people on this board (including me) are at the highest risk.

Woo! I'm a real upper today!

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

Assuming the most bastard pandemic ever, the only ones really needed for the survival of the species and the ability of restoring a decent tech level in relatively short time are:

pregnant females
fertile people (that is between 16 and 40)
qualified medical personnel
specialised technicians/scientists/engineers

this is the very minimum, I think

Don't most healthy people survive the flu, anyway?
Depends entirely on the strain of flu. There's a reason they make a new flu vaccine every year. It's because there's a new strain about that often.

Everyone else should be saved in accordance with their ability to pay for the cure.

Yeah, fuck being charitable. Up yours Third World. That's what you get for being poor. Who gives a shit about the survival of the human race when there are profits to be made?

Fuck being charitable. Up yours Third World. That's what you get for being poor.

sigged, because it made me do my 'mad hyena cackle'-laugh :fluffle:

sigged, because it made me do my 'mad hyena cackle'-laugh :fluffle:

Woohoo!

Triage is an old and well-founded concept.

It's used in emergency rooms everywhere, every day. You have to decide how best to use limited resources to help as many as possible.

Some people are "expectant" - that is, they will die soon, even if you engage in heroic measures.

Triage is an old and well-founded concept.

It's used in emergency rooms everywhere, every day. You have to decide how best to use limited resources to help as many as possible.

Some people are "expectant" - that is, they will die soon, even if you engage in heroic measures.


Thats true, doesn't stop it from sounding rather heartless at times though! lol I can understand it's usefulness though.

Who should not be saved, most people. Need to lose about 4 billion people off this globe.

Thats true, doesn't stop it from sounding rather heartless at times though! lol I can understand it's usefulness though.

Triage is an old and well-founded concept.

It's used in emergency rooms everywhere, every day. You have to decide how best to use limited resources to help as many as possible.

Some people are "expectant" - that is, they will die soon, even if you engage in heroic measures.

It is heartless. But in a situation where you need triage you need to be heartless.

Protect the healthy and the strong. Protect the young generation.

Immunise the healthy. Those who are weak and would die anyway, just reduce the suffering with drugs (ie: LSD, morphine, Ecstasy, Marijuana... anything that can fool the mind).

EDIT - This includes those who have valuable skills.

Everyone else should be saved in accordance with their ability to pay for the cure.

It makes no sense to save the dumb football jock and not the smart scientist that makes less than he does.

It makes no sense to save the dumb football jock and not the smart scientist that makes less than he does.

Exactly - David Beckham and Justin Timberlake make about a trillion pounds a year but I don't want them having to perform essential medical or engineering works because we let all the skilled tradesmen die as they couldnt afford the cure!

Don't most healthy people survive the flu, anyway?

Depends on the mechanism of the virus: some times healthy people are the most at risk.

Everyone else should be saved in accordance with their ability to pay for the cure.

That's a ridiculous idea. Even disregarding the ethical objections, the practical ones are overwhelming:

-manual workers (you know, the ones who are actually the most vital to the survival of a society?) will die in droves
-scientists and academics will be at disproportionate risk, as will (to a lesser extent) teachers, creating huge long-term problems
-many students (and young people in general) will die
-the survivors will include a disproportionate number of managers, bankers, accountants etc. with no practical skills. It'll be like the B Ark in Hitchhiker's Guide...
-you'll either have a lot of children dying, or you'll have a lot of orphans who'll need looking after (how many people would be able to pay for treatment for themselves and their family)
-gender imbalance (men tend to have higher incomes than women)
-the people who work to produce and distribute drugs will be unlikely to do so if they know they won't be able to afford them: theft and hijacking will be rife. You might try to call in the police or army to control the situation, but how many of them will be inclined to help when they know they won't be able to afford the treatment on their salaries?

Those are just a few of the problems which spring to mind. It's utterly insane.

The. Rich. Must. Die.muhahahahahahaa.
Communist uprising ftw.

I think its obviously sick people who shouldnt be saved, Quarantine and all that...nip this thing in the bud, lol..

Hmm. There's one thing I don't about this. Although I can in a rather morbid way understand denying a new in-patient because of the need to keep resources free to help the greatest number of people, I don't think I could ever condone actually taking resources off someone currently being treated. It's one thing to say "I'm sorry, but we don't have enough resources to take you in" and quite another to say "I'm sorry, but we need to kick you out to free up resources". At least if you're just being denied service you have a possibility of going somewhere else - people in the middle of being treated don't have that luxury.

those who are least likely to survive--the elderly, those whose disease has already progressed to the likely to die stage, those will weakened immune systems (if that is a factor in this flu), and those who cannot make it to a treatment center.

no factor of social standing, economic status, race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sexual preference, etc should come into it.

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

The Spanish, with one notable exception...
;)

No serious answer, 'cause I've never thought about it...

IQ and degrees should be taken into account, I believe: The smarter people should be treated first.
Smarter doesn't mean better. a person can be smart but not wise.

Smarter doesn't mean better. a person can be smart but not wise.

I agree, IQ means little in survival terms.

I agree, IQ means little in survival terms.

Exactly, I have a high IQ (top 3% - scary I know!) and I'm about to go onto my second degree but I can't even use a tinopener. If I was left to fend for myself I'd be dead in hours! :D

Exactly, I have a high IQ (top 3% - scary I know!) and I'm about to go onto my second degree but I can't even use a tinopener. If I was left to fend for myself I'd be dead in hours! :D

So what do you eat if you can't use a tinopener?
I wonder if there's an official survival test like the IQ that could be applied here.

The first people that should be saved are the political elites. Not.

So what do you eat if you can't use a tinopener?
I wonder if there's an official survival test like the IQ that could be applied here.

There's an interesting idea. A "dealing with the world" Q. How the heck do you measure it?

How to determine whether someone's intellect is the over-specialized white lab coat kind or the jack of all trades kind?

And it's a fact I have seen demonstrated myself. Take 2 really, really smart people, and put them one one team, take 2 average minds and put them on the other. If the task is "install a fence" the smart team loses. The average team gets the fence up while the smart team is arguing over where the first post hole gets dug. But yet, if the task was to think of the fastest way to install fences, the outcome would be different.

I think, in the brilliant generalist category, we might find:

Successful small business owners. (Because they have to deal with EVERYTHING and win)
Succesful farmers (same criteria)
Successful soldiers (ie, been at it a long time, experienced a lot, and not dead)
Succesful criminals. (same criteria)

It makes no sense to save the dumb football jock and not the smart scientist that makes less than he does.
I doubt we're talking about treatments that costs gazillions of dollars, that is out of reach of most productive people. That choice probably doesn't need to be made. It's more like treating the useful over the indigent.

This isn't so much different than your suggestion, either. Anyone smart enough to be treated would, more than likely, be smart enough to have enough money for the treatment. And if we miss the odd genius or so that doesn't believe in money, we'll probably pick up the odd idiot millionaire to balance things out.

So what do you eat if you can't use a tinopener?
I wonder if there's an official survival test like the IQ that could be applied here.

I only buy cans that come with ringpulls, or I eat fresh stuff or stuff from packets. Adaptation is the key to humanity's survival after all!

Sad to see the usual bias come out here. Are most of you saying that one should have to take an IQ test or provide a tax statement to get medical treatment? How many would die just providing proper documentation of their utility?

Triage is about judging saving the most lives with the resources at hand. That judgment is based on one's physical and, sometimes, mental state. Nothing more. What you guys are suggesting is very... "progressive" and that should give you pause.

I do understand that some of your answers are meant to be humorous but some of you should ask yourselves how easy it is to say "rich" and "educated" and "useful". Then ask yourselves if others would place you in such a category.

Sad to see the usual bias come out here. Are most of you saying that one should have to take an IQ test or provide a tax statement to get medical treatment? How many would die just providing proper documentation of their utility?

Triage is about judging saving the most lives with the resources at hand. That judgment is based on one's physical and, sometimes, mental state. Nothing more. What you guys are suggesting is very... "progressive" and that should give you pause.

I do understand that some of your answers are meant to be humorous but some of you should ask yourselves how easy it is to say "rich" and "educated" and "useful". Then ask yourselves if others would place you in such a category.
How nauseatingly idealistic... My suggestion is very simple. It doesn't require a tax return, nor an IQ test. If you can pay the freight, you get the treatment. Very simple.

How nauseatingly idealistic... My suggestion is very simple. It doesn't require a tax return, nor an IQ test. If you can pay the freight, you get the treatment. Very simple.
If there's a shortage then it's not just a question of who pays but who gets to make the purchase. You could rephrase the OP's question - who do you sell to when everyone can afford to pay for it but you've only got enough for some of them?

I doubt we're talking about treatments that costs gazillions of dollars, that is out of reach of most productive people. That choice probably doesn't need to be made. It's more like treating the useful over the indigent.

This isn't so much different than your suggestion, either. Anyone smart enough to be treated would, more than likely, be smart enough to have enough money for the treatment. And if we miss the odd genius or so that doesn't believe in money, we'll probably pick up the odd idiot millionaire to balance things out.

How nauseatingly idealistic... My suggestion is very simple. It doesn't require a tax return, nor an IQ test. If you can pay the freight, you get the treatment. Very simple.

Hang on there. If the treatment's going to be so cheap that nearly everyone can afford it then what determines the order in which people will get it? Enough will eventually be produced to give everyone a dose, so it's really a question of prioritisation. Your suggestion does nothing but hand treatment out at random to everyone except the poorest segment of society.

If there's a shortage then it's not just a question of who pays but who gets to make the purchase. You could rephrase the OP's question - who do you sell to when everyone can afford to pay for it but you've only got enough for some of them?
Y'all have got a bit to learn about shopping, don't you? You fill up beds on a first come, first serve basis. The market corrects the price and you turn away people that can't afford it... Until, of course, the government steps in and makes it "fair".

Is that so hard to understand?

Just ask them if they voted for Bush the second time. The first time can be forgiven. Not the second time. If they say yes, they die.

EDIT: Note, this is not trolling, Im 100% serious.

I don't consider it trolling. I consider it speaking the truth. ROFL!

Those who voted for Bush a second time deserve a slow and painful demise.:p

The Spanish, with one notable exception...
;)

No serious answer, 'cause I've never thought about it...

Hopefully I'm that notable exception...;)

No prob. I have never thought of that either until I saw the article.

Give each person a number and hold a random drawing to see who gets to live.

Don't cure anyone. Let those who are naturally immune survive. Isn't that how things have been in the past? After all, what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. So, if a pandemic doesn't kill all the human race and all the immune ones live, the genetic line will be made stronger, no?

Give each person a number and hold a random drawing to see who gets to live.
I am not a number i am a free man!

Don't cure anyone. Let those who are naturally immune survive. Isn't that how things have been in the past? After all, what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. So, if a pandemic doesn't kill all the human race and all the immune ones live, the genetic line will be made stronger, no?

no.

Don't cure anyone. Let those who are naturally immune survive. Isn't that how things have been in the past? After all, what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. So, if a pandemic doesn't kill all the human race and all the immune ones live, the genetic line will be made stronger, no?

Darwinism!!!

I guess I wouldn't spend any effort in trying to cure those who were too ill to survive (cancer patients, infirm and sick people, the very old). That's the only exception.

no.

Why not?

Let's say that X virus is killing a lot of people. There are three types of people that come in contact with this virus: those who are completely immune(A), those who can contract it, but will not suffer from it(B), and those who will contract it and die(C). If X virus kills off all those who are C, and leave A and B alive, then when future generations are made, they will be made from A and B people, who cannot be affected by virus X. That makes the genetic line stronger, because now the future generations cannot have trouble with X virus. And then substitute X virus with any other virus, and it all works the same. And if there is a virus that is strong enough to kill everyone, then so be it. That's reality.

Don't cure anyone. Let those who are naturally immune survive. Isn't that how things have been in the past? After all, what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. So, if a pandemic doesn't kill all the human race and all the immune ones live, the genetic line will be made stronger, no?

no.

it assumes:

1) there is an immunity

2) those that are immune would be of sufficient numbers to rebuild a functioning society.

And the most important #3

3) it presumes that "strong genes" is sufficient justification to let millions die who would otherwise live, and eugenics is a blight on mankind no matter who attempts it and for what ends.

Y'all have got a bit to learn about shopping, don't you? You fill up beds on a first come, first serve basis. The market corrects the price and you turn away people that can't afford it... Until, of course, the government steps in and makes it "fair".

Is that so hard to understand?
Well, yeah, I'm a little puzzled. So, if it turns out that there isn't enough to go around then it just dissolves into a race to see who gets it first?

That seems rather uncivilised and inefficient. You'd have thought it would be in the best interests of both the providers and the wider community that treatment should go first to the customers that would be lost (ie - killed by the virus) before the second batch of treatment could be dispatched, regardless of whether or not they get there first.

And if there is a virus that is strong enough to kill everyone, then so be it.

Why the fuck should that be "it"? What in the world would compel someone to decide to just let people die...

That's reality.

I'm not sure what "reality" you live in, but it's a whole hell of a lot different than the one most sane people inhabit.

Why not?

Let's say that X virus is killing a lot of people. There are three types of people that come in contact with this virus: those who are completely immune(A), those who can contract it, but will not suffer from it(B), and those who will contract it and die(C). If X virus kills off all those who are C, and leave A and B alive, then when future generations are made, they will be made from A and B people, who cannot be affected by virus X. That makes the genetic line stronger, because now the future generations cannot have trouble with X virus. And then substitute X virus with any other virus, and it all works the same. And if there is a virus that is strong enough to kill everyone, then so be it. That's reality.

Doesn't sound like a moral way of doing it though.
Besides if no one is immune to a certain virus that shoots your solution down.
And why can't there be immunisation shots given to those who aren't immune?
What happens if the only people who are immune to a certain disease also happen to be paedophiles or serial killers?
You can't have a solution purely based on a genetic explanation of how things are because genetics isn't the only reason why people survive.

no.

it assumes:

1) there is an immunity

2) those that are immune would be of sufficient numbers to rebuild a functioning society.

And the most important #3

3) it presumes that "strong genes" is sufficient justification to let millions die who would otherwise live, and eugenics is a blight on mankind no matter who attempts it and for what ends.

Its not really eugenics. I am just proposing letting nature take its course. Its been like that for the last several hundred million years. Why should we be any better to escape that certain fate?

Its not really eugenics. I am just proposing letting nature take its course. Its been like that for the last several hundred million years. Why should we be any better to escape that certain fate?

Perhaps it's that your posts have the feeling of someone playing God.

Just ask them if they voted for Bush the second time. The first time can be forgiven. Not the second time. If they say yes, they die.

EDIT: Note, this is not trolling, Im 100% serious.

I guess it's no surprise that the people here gave this comment a pass. Why does noone else see anything wrong with killing people based on their views rather than their likelyhood of survival?


Oh well, then I hail you KoL, may your desire of mass killings be forever unfullfilled.

Doesn't sound like a moral way of doing it though.
Besides if no one is immune to a certain virus that shoots your solution down.
And why can't there be immunisation shots given to those who aren't immune?
What happens if the only people who are immune to a certain disease also happen to be paedophiles or serial killers?
You can't have a solution purely based on a genetic explanation of how things are because genetics isn't the only reason why people survive.

Eh, I suppose if you want to go the moral route, you can win with that argument. I just like to play devil's advocate.

Don't cure anyone. Let those who are naturally immune survive. Isn't that how things have been in the past? After all, what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. So, if a pandemic doesn't kill all the human race and all the immune ones live, the genetic line will be made stronger, no?

You and your family go first.

George Bush, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell...oh, and we'll throw Laura Bush in there as well for being married to a self-serving arrogant SOB.

Also, throw Margaret Thatcher, Gordo the-Not-So-Unconquerable-Brown, and Neil Kinnock in there for good measure.

You and your family go first.

If you think as such, your opinion is no better than his.

If you think as such, your opinion is no better than his.

If people advocate genocide and mass killings (which it what it ammounts too) I see no problem with them being the first in line.

If people advocate genocide and mass killings (which it what it ammounts too) I see no problem with them being the first in line.

How is it genocide or mass murder? Its nature.

Besides, this planet would be off a lot better with out humans on the face of it.

Hopefully I'm that notable exception...;)

No prob. I have never thought of that either until I saw the article.

Of course you are...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/LO6bigHug02HL2.gif

I read this articel on AOL a couple of minutes ago and I thought it was rather interesting.



http://news.aol.com/health/story/ar/_a/who-should-not-be-saved-in-a-pandemic/20080505092509990001

So, Generalites, I ask you the same question:

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

Please, don't flame or troll. Kudasai!!!:p

All or none...there is no other moral solution. If morality is removed from the equation, then obviously the ones which should be saved are the least moral of all.

How is it genocide or mass murder? Its nature.

Besides, this planet would be off a lot better with out humans on the face of it.

Surely. Beginning with those which would decide as they will be the most damaging elements and should not be spared.

Don't cure anyone. Let those who are naturally immune survive. Isn't that how things have been in the past? After all, what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. So, if a pandemic doesn't kill all the human race and all the immune ones live, the genetic line will be made stronger, no?

This raises the question of Do you really believe this? and if so, I would assume you are currently against immunization policies (local, national, and global). Nothing wrong with that position, just a curiosity.

I doubt we're talking about treatments that costs gazillions of dollars, that is out of reach of most productive people. That choice probably doesn't need to be made. It's more like treating the useful over the indigent.

This isn't so much different than your suggestion, either. Anyone smart enough to be treated would, more than likely, be smart enough to have enough money for the treatment. And if we miss the odd genius or so that doesn't believe in money, we'll probably pick up the odd idiot millionaire to balance things out.



Because the smartest are always rich.


Which is why college professors are fucking l-o-a-d-e-d.


Not.

I guess it's no surprise that the people here gave this comment a pass. Why does noone else see anything wrong with killing people based on their views rather than their likelyhood of survival?


Because I want people too stupid to see the world around them to die.


Oh well, then I hail you KoL, may your desire of mass killings be forever unfullfilled.

I dont really want mass killing. Im not killing them. Im just saying, that if we have to pick who to save, they are not first on my list.

Unless Im the virus...?

Because I want people too stupid to see the world around them to die.




I dont really want mass killing. Im not killing them. Im just saying, that if we have to pick who to save, they are not first on my list.

Unless Im the virus...?

*immunizes self against KoL*

*immunizes self against KoL*

*evolves so immunization doesnt work anymore and infects Dyakovo*

*evolves so immunization doesnt work anymore and infects Dyakovo*

*disbelieves evolution?*

*disbelieves evolution?*

Where is your God now?;)

I doubt we're talking about treatments that costs gazillions of dollars, that is out of reach of most productive people. That choice probably doesn't need to be made. It's more like treating the useful over the indigent.

This isn't so much different than your suggestion, either. Anyone smart enough to be treated would, more than likely, be smart enough to have enough money for the treatment. And if we miss the odd genius or so that doesn't believe in money, we'll probably pick up the odd idiot millionaire to balance things out.

However, one would ask if in such a pandemic, how would the economy be fairing? As in, if you really HAVE to decide who lives in dies in large numbers, the likely hood of the pandemic being near-devastating to the economy would make paying for treatment all but, I don't know, useless? Somehow, I doubt the major concern of most people in such a situation(Although, I am giving major corporation a bit to much credit) is going to be "How much money can I make?", especially if such an epidemic lasts for some time, and depending on the scale.

Where is your God now?;)

I don't know, maybe if I had one I could stop you from 'infecting' me...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/post-386-1127687954.gif

If people advocate genocide and mass killings (which it what it ammounts too) I see no problem with them being the first in line.

Precisely that way of thinking is what makes you no better than Zilam. You both, wether knowingly or not, advocate condemning thousands.

Of course you are...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/LO6bigHug02HL2.gif

Yay!!
:fluffle:

Precisely that way of thinking is what makes you no better than Zilam. You both, wether knowingly or not, advocate condemning thousands.

AHEM...
Eh, I suppose if you want to go the moral route, you can win with that argument. I just like to play devil's advocate.
I don't think Zilam is convinced by it himself, he's probably trying to find out good ways to get around it for later, that or he's being silly.

no.

it assumes:

1) there is an immunity

Well, there is no doubt that some may be naturally more capable of dealing with such a disease, I.E. their Immune System is adapted to the right degree to deal with infection.


2) those that are immune would be of sufficient numbers to rebuild a functioning society.

The clincher statement. There is no knowing how many people would survive. Now then, the human population has bottle necked before, and you would only need about a few hundred to maintain the genepool. Also, it would be very likely that such a population would be relatively close to each other, due to genetics and whatnot. If lucky, a few "population centers" around the world would survive. Now then, the society we would have now would quickly be nothing more than a distant memory, and become near mythical, really, and would never be able to rebuild, more than likely.


And the most important #3

3) it presumes that "strong genes" is sufficient justification to let millions die who would otherwise live, and eugenics is a blight on mankind no matter who attempts it and for what ends.

Eh, Natural Selection is a type of eugenics, albeit not based on what most people think of it as eugenics. It is most definitely not ensuring that the "strong" or "best" survive, only the most capable of surviving natural environments(Which disease would be included in) survive. Now, then, that said with technology today, we can circumvent, to an extent, this natural eugenics, but not necessarily overcome it. We should be careful, however, to the extent we try to circumvent this, because it is starting to create quite a few nasty problems(Over-use of Anti-biotics is starting to create some rather nasty super-strains of bacteria that are becoming resistant to them, for instance). That is not to say that we should "let nature take its course", so to speak, because quite frankly we have the capability of surviving "nature" by "unnatural" means, due to our natural intelligence, but that sometimes taking that route creates unexpected results.

Its not really eugenics. I am just proposing letting nature take its course. Its been like that for the last several hundred million years. Why should we be any better to escape that certain fate?

Because we're capable of avoiding it?

Seriously, Zilam, you can't possibly be serious. We're just doing what comes naturally to us: we find a solution to our problems. We adapt on a much faster and more effective scale. Any other species with our abilities would do the exact same thing.

Besides, at the very least, our intelligence is very special, and thus deserves to be preserved for at least that one reason.

But hey, if you wouldn't want to cure others, I'm sure you wouldn't want to be cured yourself, either. Fine with me. That means someone else gets cured.

Precisely that way of thinking is what makes you no better than Zilam. You both, wether knowingly or not, advocate condemning thousands.

Funny thing is, he said Zilam and his family would be first in line. But Zilam advocated letting nature take its course. Problem being, you can't control nature, and force it to take its course on someone.

Because the smartest are always rich.


Which is why college professors are fucking l-o-a-d-e-d.


Not.
Did you even read what I said? I don't see how, given the knee-jerk response...

And college professors aren't in soup lines, either smart guy. They certainly have more opportunities than most to become wealthy, if they are ambitious enough. They have to work a little extra for royalties and honoraria, but the opportunities are there. Sometimes one even comes up with a revolutionary idea, quits teaching, starts a company, sells the company, and lives comfortably ever after... I know because I did.

Funny thing is, he said Zilam and his family would be first in line. But Zilam advocated letting nature take its course. Problem being, you can't control nature, and force it to take its course on someone.

I guess this thread was a bad idea. For some reason, after reading most of the posts, I feel like we´re all trying to play God. I don´t think there´s a proper way of deciding who should be, in the case of a pandemic, left to die. I, right now, don´t feel that I can, even with all the knowledge in the world, make the decision (and I´m well aware I´m not being asked to) to let someone die if there´s a pandemic. The responsibility would be overwhelming.

I guess this thread was a bad idea. For some reason, after reading most of the posts, I feel like we´re all trying to play God. I don´t think there´s a proper way of deciding who should be, in the case of a pandemic, left to die. I, right now, don´t feel that I can, even with all the knowledge in the world, make the decision (and I´m well aware I´m not being asked to) to let someone die if there´s a pandemic. The responsibility would be overwhelming.

Nah, this thread is a great idea. It lets us see who the crazies are;)

However, one would ask if in such a pandemic, how would the economy be fairing? As in, if you really HAVE to decide who lives in dies in large numbers, the likely hood of the pandemic being near-devastating to the economy would make paying for treatment all but, I don't know, useless? Somehow, I doubt the major concern of most people in such a situation(Although, I am giving major corporation a bit to much credit) is going to be "How much money can I make?", especially if such an epidemic lasts for some time, and depending on the scale.
As far as I can tell, setting up a reliable distribution network for "free" services in those conditions would be just as difficult as paying for services received. Why do you think that any alternative would be more workable that the situation I've proposed? It's not about "making a lot of money", it's about letting the market determine how care is dispensed.

Nah, this thread is a great idea. It lets us see who the crazies are;)

Like any of the responses have prompted a reaction of: "OMG I can't believe s/he said that..."

Nah, this thread is a great idea. It lets us see who the crazies are;)

*raises right hand*
I whole heartedly agree in that aspect.
I think I´m on that category. I can proudly say I´m one of those unhinged characters that lurk on NSG.:p

I guess this thread was a bad idea. For some reason, after reading most of the posts, I feel like we´re all trying to play God. I don´t think there´s a proper way of deciding who should be, in the case of a pandemic, left to die. I, right now, don´t feel that I can, even with all the knowledge in the world, make the decision (and I´m well aware I´m not being asked to) to let someone die if there´s a pandemic. The responsibility would be overwhelming.

Well, there runs another problem with the "cure" is that it may run the risk of actually creating an even worse problem-a more resistant strain of the disease, which in turn will likely be more deadly than before. "Over-curing" people could infact be the worst action we could take. So really, we shouldn't letting those most likely to die not go with treatment, and treat everyone else, perhaps we should be looking at treating those who are more likely to be susceptible to the disease first.

As far as I can tell, setting up a reliable distribution network for "free" services in those conditions would be just as difficult as paying for services received. Why do you think that any alternative would be more workable that the situation I've proposed? It's not about "making a lot of money", it's about letting the market determine how care is dispensed.

Depending on the scale of the epidemic, and the severity of the disease, I would tend to agree. However, in a worst(Or even just a "really, really, bad" scenario) case scenario, where treatment is necessary for survival, I can forsee the price of treatment being damn near unafforadable for most. This, in turn, will create a large portion of the population susceptible to disease and death(Mostly the Lower Class and Lower-Middle Class), which in turn will knock out massive amounts of the labor force. This will, in turn, have a drastic effect on the market and the economy, as these lower jobs will now be unfilled. Now we run into problems, no?

However, one would ask if in such a pandemic, how would the economy be fairing? As in, if you really HAVE to decide who lives in dies in large numbers, the likely hood of the pandemic being near-devastating to the economy would make paying for treatment all but, I don't know, useless? Somehow, I doubt the major concern of most people in such a situation(Although, I am giving major corporation a bit to much credit) is going to be "How much money can I make?", especially if such an epidemic lasts for some time, and depending on the scale.Yes, I was thinking along these lines. The assumption that a laissez faire market would be able to cope adequately during a pandemic is laughable. I'd be surprised if the market wasn't in full scale collapse in such a situation. In times of panic a strong centralised authority would be much better suited to coordinating resources.

How is it genocide or mass murder? Its nature.

Besides, this planet would be off a lot better with out humans on the face of it.

The planet and maybe a few people might be better off, however, that still doesn't make it right.

Don't cure anyone. Let those who are naturally immune survive. Isn't that how things have been in the past? After all, what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger. So, if a pandemic doesn't kill all the human race and all the immune ones live, the genetic line will be made stronger, no?

I am so sick of that phrase.

Multiple Sclerosis doesn't kill you, and leaves you randomly weakened.
COPD doesn't kill you, but try climbing a flight of stairs.
Parkinson's
Cystic Fibrosis
Leukemia
Chemotherapy
Muscular Dystrophy
Fibromyalgia
Anemia
Reye's Syndrome
Poliomyelitis

Most of those don't kill you (some for as long as decades) and leave you anything but stronger, and those are just the conditions off the top of my head.

Funny thing is, he said Zilam and his family would be first in line. But Zilam advocated letting nature take its course. Problem being, you can't control nature, and force it to take its course on someone.

Well, that rendered my comment null then, didn't it? :(

The planet and maybe a few people might be better off, however, that still doesn't make it right.

I don't recall "right" being part of the OP. We were just asked how we'd decide. You're clearly a fan of some sort of moral/ethical component. Others aren't.

I don't recall "right" being part of the OP. We were just asked how we'd decide. You're clearly a fan of some sort of moral/ethical component. Others aren't.

Fine, if you could condemn millions or billions to die and not care, or even think it's right, there's nothing I can do to change it.

I think, in the brilliant generalist category, we might find:

Successful small business owners. (Because they have to deal with EVERYTHING and win)
Succesful farmers (same criteria)
Successful soldiers (ie, been at it a long time, experienced a lot, and not dead)
Succesful criminals. (same criteria)

I like this list.

I fit at least one and three perfectly. Also just bought a farm in Morocco. Should make a decent income so that gets me into number two. Depending on who you ask I may just qualify for number 4. So I guess so long suckers...... :D

I am so sick of that phrase.

Multiple Sclerosis doesn't kill you, and leaves you randomly weakened.
COPD doesn't kill you, but try climbing a flight of stairs.
Parkinson's
Cystic Fibrosis
Leukemia
Chemotherapy
Muscular Dystrophy
Fibromyalgia
Anemia
Reye's Syndrome
Poliomyelitis

Most of those don't kill you (some for as long as decades) and leave you anything but stronger, and those are just the conditions off the top of my head.

Well, technically speaking, they would die in a "natural" setting, without treatment of any sort, some rather quickly unless cared for intensely by others. Of those that are genetic in nature, one could argue that allowing nature to take it's course would be ideal, as it would reduce it's presence in the gene pool, and decrease the likelihood of it arising in future generations.

That said, I am not making that argument. We have come a long way from just 'letting nature take its course', and modern treatment can allow those afflicted to live practically normal and healthy lives.

You guys are all thinking a little too big.

Pandemics do not destroy societies. Even the most devastating pandemics of the past - the Black Death, the Plague of Justinian, the Spanish Influenza - have not destroyed society's ability to function, though they have often wrought great change.

In the case of fictional plagues - Jumping Jack Flash/Superflu from The Stand comes to mind - the disease is so devastating that Triage is pointless, and wouldn't occur anyway since the doctors and health professionals of all stripes would be among the first to die.

In the case of a pandemic, the only rational form of Triage is the traditional form: divide your patient base into three - minors, majors and fatals. Minors are those who have every expectation of making it on their own - you give them roughly 10% of your resources in order to prevent them advancing to major status. Fatals also get only 10% of your resources - this is purely palliative care, to make them as comfortable as possible before they die, as they are the ones who have less than 10% chance of survival anyway.

80% of your effort goes on majors. These are people who have a good chance to survive if they get medical assistance, but not otherwise. Some are going to die anyway, but the vast majority should live.

This is a tried and true system that has saved literally millions of lives. By not expending resources where it is unnecesary or wasteful, you target your limited resources where they will do the most good.

Economic status, job, IQ - all of this is useless ephemera that only gets in the way of basic reality.

Fine, if you could condemn millions or billions to die and not care, or even think it's right, there's nothing I can do to change it.

No one is asking you to. All I wanted was to hear how would you deal if that situation ever happened.:rolleyes:

Have you ever heard of the word ¨hypothetical¨?

No one is asking you to. All I wanted was to hear how would you deal if that situation ever happened.:rolleyes:

Have you ever heard of the word ¨hypothetical¨?

The whole point of "hypothetical" is to find out how people would react or what people would do in the "hypothetical" situation. Kapeesh?

The whole point of "hypothetical" is to find out how people would react or what people would do in the "hypothetical" situation. Kapeesh?

Capicce or capito are the correct terms. It´s an Italian word, I´ll have you know.

Exactly why, since this is a hypothetical situation, you don´t need or are required to change anyone´s opinions on the matter. All you´re required to do is state how you, YOU, would handle it.

The whole point of "hypothetical" is to find out how people would react or what people would do in the "hypothetical" situation. Kapeesh?

As you know what people say they would do and what they actually do is completely different at times. There are a rare few that would stick to their original plan though. I think most would run around in a circle like a chicken with it's head cutoff.

Depending on the scale of the epidemic, and the severity of the disease, I would tend to agree. However, in a worst(Or even just a "really, really, bad" scenario) case scenario, where treatment is necessary for survival, I can forsee the price of treatment being damn near unafforadable for most. This, in turn, will create a large portion of the population susceptible to disease and death(Mostly the Lower Class and Lower-Middle Class), which in turn will knock out massive amounts of the labor force. This will, in turn, have a drastic effect on the market and the economy, as these lower jobs will now be unfilled. Now we run into problems, no?
Hardly. I certainly expect the survivors to be resilient enough to learn how to do menial work. That's the neat thing about skill; you can always downgrade and do work a few levels beneath your capability. You just can't go the other way.

I like this list.

I fit at least one and three perfectly. Also just bought a farm in Morocco. Should make a decent income so that gets me into number two. Depending on who you ask I may just qualify for number 4. So I guess so long suckers...... :D
Stupid question -- Are you Moroccan? How hard is it for a non-citizen to buy real property there? What are you going to farm?

Fine, if you could condemn millions or billions to die and not care, or even think it's right, there's nothing I can do to change it.

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ, will you PLEASE stop putting words in people's posts?!?

Please quote the post where I condemned anyone. If you can't -- and I know you can't -- then do us all a favor and keep your ignorant fingers still.

This is a hypothetical exercise in the first place. You taking such offense to posited solutions to the OP question is just as stupid as attempting to answer a rhetorical question. Triage is not condemnation. If you're at the level of emergency where triage is necessary, then condemnation doesn't enter into anything -- efficiency does.

Stupid question -- Are you Moroccan? How hard is it for a non-citizen to buy real property there? What are you going to farm?

Ah, the internet. Specifically CIA.gov (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mo.html) --

Looks like he might farm barley, wheat, citrus, wine (grapes), vegetables, olives; or produce livestock.

The people who shouldn't be saved are the people who can't be saved. That is those who either seek medical help to late for a realistic chance of survival and those who are already suffering from a terminal illness that will kill them in the short term.

Basing who gets cured on IQ is pointless. Firstly because in many cases you would need to actually do the IQ test first and secondly because, as has already been said several times, you need manual labourers as much if not more than the people who design what they build.

Basing it on who can pay for a cure is also pointless because as treatment capacity became less available, the price would go up. As the first people to buy treatment would already be the richer section of the population you would simply price the majority of people out. You're also condemning just about everyone under the age of about 25 (ie have not had enough time to amass the kind of money needed, especially if they've been to university) to death as there would be no way they could afford it.

So really, the only people who shouldn't be saved are those that can't be, and possibly politicians.

Ah, the internet. Specifically CIA.gov (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mo.html) --

Looks like he might farm barley, wheat, citrus, wine (grapes), vegetables, olives; or produce livestock.
That's about as big of a non-answer as I've ever seen... As I farm a little, I know there is an enormous difference between grapes, pigs, and barley.

The question was what are YOU going to farm, not what can some fool find in the world factbook...

That's about as big of a non-answer as I've ever seen... As I farm a little, I know there is an enormous difference between grapes, pigs, and barley.

The question was what are YOU going to farm, not what can some fool find in the world factbook...

Then I ask you, what does that matter? All I did was look up some possible answers. You seem to be the one who wants to take this thread in less and less plausible directions. I was just helping Marrakech II out. I'm sure that the right amount of inducement gets him a farm in Morocco, citizen or not.

Hardly. I certainly expect the survivors to be resilient enough to learn how to do menial work. That's the neat thing about skill; you can always downgrade and do work a few levels beneath your capability. You just can't go the other way.

Politicians do it all the time. Look at our president;)

You guys are all thinking a little too big.

Pandemics do not destroy societies. Even the most devastating pandemics of the past - the Black Death, the Plague of Justinian, the Spanish Influenza - have not destroyed society's ability to function, though they have often wrought great change.

In the case of fictional plagues - Jumping Jack Flash/Superflu from The Stand comes to mind - the disease is so devastating that Triage is pointless, and wouldn't occur anyway since the doctors and health professionals of all stripes would be among the first to die.

In the case of a pandemic, the only rational form of Triage is the traditional form: divide your patient base into three - minors, majors and fatals. Minors are those who have every expectation of making it on their own - you give them roughly 10% of your resources in order to prevent them advancing to major status. Fatals also get only 10% of your resources - this is purely palliative care, to make them as comfortable as possible before they die, as they are the ones who have less than 10% chance of survival anyway.

80% of your effort goes on majors. These are people who have a good chance to survive if they get medical assistance, but not otherwise. Some are going to die anyway, but the vast majority should live.

This is a tried and true system that has saved literally millions of lives. By not expending resources where it is unnecesary or wasteful, you target your limited resources where they will do the most good.

Economic status, job, IQ - all of this is useless ephemera that only gets in the way of basic reality.


what might destroy society is deviating from this plan.

if the rich or the smart get priority over the regular people why would those regular people continue to support the lives of the rich and the smart?

if the nurse taking care of mr bigbucks knows that he got a spot and her husband was left to die on the street, she might just put a pillow over mr bigbuck's face. or stay home to take care of her family since society isnt going to.

without at least the appearance of fairness, the whole system would break down.

Politicians do it all the time. Look at our president;)
LOL.

What was that thing from back in the sixties? The Peter Principle. It stated that you rise to the level of your incompetence. I guess in spectacular cases, one can rise well above one's level of incompetence and really screw up.

LOL.

What was that thing from back in the sixties? The Peter Principle. It stated that you rise to the level of your incompetence. I guess in spectacular cases, one can rise well above one's level of incompetence and really screw up.

The only problem is that the Peter Principle means everyone is at the level just above where they should be. The excellent foreman gets promoted to garage manager, the amazing general gets a desk job with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and here they start messing up. That would mean that George W. Bush would make an excellent vice-president. I contest that. :)

Speaking of incompetence, I'm not sure why people keep suggesting we try to save scientists, engineers, and other "experts." If there's a pandemic this bad, it's because those folks screwed up royal, and should be the first we eat...I mean, let die.

Hardly. I certainly expect the survivors to be resilient enough to learn how to do menial work. That's the neat thing about skill; you can always downgrade and do work a few levels beneath your capability. You just can't go the other way.

Yeah, you know all the technically expertise in the world isn't going to help you if you don't know the first thing about how to apply in real world situations. Not all lower-class people are doing menial tasks, many are doing labor intensive work. So yeah... not quite. Also, I'd find it difficult to believe that any well-to-do person is going to go beneath them and do labor work.

As for not going the other, that's a bold faced lie and a half. You can gain a great deal of technical skills from a book. But when push comes to shove, if you don't have real world practical skills in such a task, you are screwed. Both can be gained with experience. If you don't have experience, it doesn't matter how menial you think it may be, you will fail.

So, Generalites, I ask you the same question:

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

A) Those who have already demonstrated self-destructive tendencies such as drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers and so forth.

B) Breeders (not the responsible type who care and provide for their children, more or less the ones who keep on having children either because they don't know how to stop, or need the check, or whatever).

C) Anyone with the last name of Bush, just for the fun of it.

D) Idiots, because I heard it once and it stuck with me: You can't fix stupid.

E) Criminals. See D.

I'm sure I could think of more, but I'm lazy... oh yeah...

F) Lazy people.

I already eliminated myself since I'm a smoker anyways.

Yeah, you know all the technically expertise in the world isn't going to help you if you don't know the first thing about how to apply in real world situations. Not all lower-class people are doing menial tasks, many are doing labor intensive work. So yeah... not quite. Also, I'd find it difficult to believe that any well-to-do person is going to go beneath them and do labor work.

As for not going the other, that's a bold faced lie and a half. You can gain a great deal of technical skills from a book. But when push comes to shove, if you don't have real world practical skills in such a task, you are screwed. Both can be gained with experience. If you don't have experience, it doesn't matter how menial you think it may be, you will fail.
I guess that's what growing up on a farm did for me. My dad would tell me to go do something --- fix a hole in the fence, for instance. I whined about it and said "I don't know how." Of course his answer, and one I've given to my kids and employees alike is "Go figure it out." Real world experience? Not necessary. Go figure it out.

There's a whole gaggle of us successful business/academic types that grew up tinkering and aren't afraid of doing a little work. Things like fixing cars, repairing plumbing, fixing the furnace, building a damn, or even getting power from a windmill are all things that are more like recreation. It's those of you that have sequestered yourselves in academia and have grown up and know everything about what to do but without any concept of how to do things that I feel for.

Speaking of incompetence, I'm not sure why people keep suggesting we try to save scientists, engineers, and other "experts." If there's a pandemic this bad, it's because those folks screwed up royal, and should be the first we eat...I mean, let die.

Actually, I can almost see that happening. An epedemic due to biological disease type weapons, wouldn't be terribly difficult to comprehend(Say, for instance, what little is left of the Small Pox virus somehow breaks out), or super-resistant bacteria or virus strains break out due to over-medication and overuse of antibiotics.

But eh... who knows?

The only problem is that the Peter Principle means everyone is at the level just above where they should be. The excellent foreman gets promoted to garage manager, the amazing general gets a desk job with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and here they start messing up. That would mean that George W. Bush would make an excellent vice-president. I contest that. :)

Speaking of incompetence, I'm not sure why people keep suggesting we try to save scientists, engineers, and other "experts." If there's a pandemic this bad, it's because those folks screwed up royal, and should be the first we eat...I mean, let die.
Did I not point to an exception in that case? Damn, I must need to type louder.

A) Those who have already demonstrated self-destructive tendencies such as drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers and so forth.

B) Breeders (not the responsible type who care and provide for their children, more or less the ones who keep on having children either because they don't know how to stop, or need the check, or whatever).

C) Anyone with the last name of Bush, just for the fun of it.

D) Idiots, because I heard it once and it stuck with me: You can't fix stupid.

E) Criminals. See D.

I'm sure I could think of more, but I'm lazy... oh yeah...

F) Lazy people.

I already eliminated myself since I'm a smoker anyways.

and i thought if you were going to make a nonsensical list you'd at least make sure that yourself would be covered.

and i would be cut out for being lazy, no fair.

Whatever we do, whoever dies, and whatever happens, we need to save Jimmy Buffett.

and i thought if you were going to make a nonsensical list you'd at least make sure that yourself would be covered.

and i would be cut out for being lazy, no fair.

So sorry. I'd say we could go out holding hands, but that would require effort.

Besides, we all know that in the given situation, the only people who would get saved are the doctors who came up with the cure, their friends, insanely rich people, and anyone willing to take out the competition along the way.

"Gee, sorry. There was a line? Hmmm, everybody here already looks dead to me."

First come, first served. If there's not enough hospital space, late comers don't get in if there's an epidemic. A hospital is a terrible place to be anyway if there's an epidemic. Don't go there unless you're bleeding severely, have broken bones, or need treatment for a severe complication such as pneumonia.

So sorry. I'd say we could go out holding hands, but that would require effort.

Besides, we all know that in the given situation, the only people who would get saved are the doctors who came up with the cure, their friends, insanely rich people, and anyone willing to take out the competition along the way.

"Gee, sorry. There was a line? Hmmm, everybody here already looks dead to me."

:)
I don't know, what are the past examples of pandemics shown us?
That it's usually the poor that get screwed over because they live so close together.
There has to be a lazy way to get a job and still be lazy, i'll have to think about that.

how about the severely stupid!

how about the severely stupid!

Like babies do you mean?

The question isn't who should be saved, but who shouldn't be saved.

First, most of the so called 'idols' in the world, like Tom Cruise or whatever, shouldn't be saved.

Further more, we shouldn't allow the cure to be on the market, people who shouldn't survive shouldn't survive shouldn't be based on their wallet size, after a major pandemic, their money will be useless anyways.

Scientists should be indeed be saved, but only if they can provide short term, tangible benefits. Theoretical Physics, however interesting and useful it maybe in the long term, won't help you rebuild a world's infrastructure.

Skilled workers should also be saved, as well as the most fertile and genetic testing should be carried out to try to remove problematic genetic diseases.

And if there is a virus that is strong enough to kill everyone, then so be it. That's reality.

Does a deer quietly submit to a lion for its evening snack? No? Then your reality is nihilistic and insofar as species behavior goes, unrealistic.

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

The Elderly
The Obese
The Alcoholics
The Smokers
The Other Drug Addicts (Illegal, specifically)
The Insane
The Mentally Retarded
The Physically Handicapped
The Blind
The Deaf
The Death Row (Duh!)
The Lethally Diseased (They'd die anyways...)
The Suicidally Depressed

That it'd get beyond that point is unlikely. That it'd get to the point where we have to trim off that many is also unlikely. So, I'll leave it at that.

Hardly. I certainly expect the survivors to be resilient enough to learn how to do menial work. That's the neat thing about skill; you can always downgrade and do work a few levels beneath your capability. You just can't go the other way.

Do you know how to farm? How to make proper welds? Fix machinery? Basic and mid complex medical care? Produce medicine? Refine oil? Operate heavy machinery? No? Can you learn to to do them all in days? No? Then you will die in your world of useless survivors.

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

The idiot doctors and scientists who failed to prevent it.

Just a thought.

The idiot doctors and scientists who failed to prevent it.

Just a thought.

How about all the non-scientific idiots who didn't even try?

Who shouldn't be saved in a Pandemic?

Well, "... Those with severe mental impairment ..." sounds good. That would include all devout religionists. ;)

Anyone who preaches that the the said Flu is revelations should not get treated.

If they want to go be with god, then let them.

I've obviously chosen the wrong career path, because in a pandemic of apocalyptic proportions, I can't think of a single reason to save any lawyers.

The idiot doctors and scientists who failed to prevent it.

Just a thought.

I can't see any problems with this. I mean, it's not like doctors would be all that useful in a pandemic situation or anything like that.

People who would not have a chance of survival even with care and maybe people who would take up a disproportionately large amount of medical resources. Maybe. Like, a whole hospital ward's worth.

Otherwise, nobody should not be saved, period.

I don't know about this list because we can actually effectively treat trauma and burns patients. If anything they should take precedence. For a pandemic like the flu there's not much you can do about it except provide support and let the immune system work it out. If treatment was that useful it probably wouldn't become a pandemic in the first place.

Not necessarily. If the shit really hits the fan, I bet the tradespeople who built the sewer system will be more useful than the engineers who designed it.

1. Being a trade person doesn't mean your IQ is low.
2. Being an engineer doesn't mean your IQ is high.
3. Trades people won't be able to build anything without plans - therefore, both trades people and engineers are required.

The ones who should be saved are those who can have either an immediate or soon to be positive influence.
Those in the medical field, construction workers, repairmen, agriculture, soldiers and policemen to control a wild populace, teachers, and researchers should come first. Those in the service industry are not essential (sorry, 70% of America.)

Those north of 70 or those who are severely mentally retarded or handicapped with no benefit to society fall later (if I sound like a monster, deal with it.)

Convicted felons come last on my list.

The idiot doctors and scientists who failed to prevent it.

Just a thought.

I Am Legend!!:p

IQ and degrees should be taken into account, I believe: The smarter people should be treated first.
The smart people who think like this should be left to die first: A degree or an out of touch number like IQ doesn't make anyone any more important than anyone else.


People who have families and are in general good shape should be treated first because a) they need less care and b) they have more to care for.



edit:
The problem with smart people and utilitiarism is that there's a tendency to see themselves as being more important. I completely and utterly despise this kind of elitism because it can lead to cruel acts like slavery or holocaust just because you percieve yourself to be superior and the other less fortunates as being inferior.

Therefore, in my opinion a much better quality to preserve for a better functioning future - post apocalyptic - society would in my opinion be compassion and kindness rather than cool, calculating efficiency.

edit 2:
This topic also posits a question that is horribly badly worded, nobody should be automatically left to die - BUT there has to be an order in which people are treated.

My order is this: People who have other people to care for and can take care of them are treated first, then people who keep the society functioning - critical leaders, some engineers and critical manual workers (food production, electrical, sanitation, transport, law enforcement, etc..), then teens and young adults who most likely require least care to survive, then fertile women of child bearing age then the rest in order of emergency.

Estate agents

Do you know how to farm? How to make proper welds? Fix machinery? Basic and mid complex medical care? Produce medicine? Refine oil? Operate heavy machinery? No? Can you learn to to do them all in days? No? Then you will die in your world of useless survivors.
Farm? Yes
Weld? Yes
Repair machinery? Yes
Heavy machinery? Yes
Make biodiesel? Yes

I figure that I'm smart enough to learn the rest, as the need arises. I don't think I'm the exception, either. Then again, folks lived for a long time without the sophistication we have now and I'm certain we can do it again.

Last, we're only talking about the flu. Not near-extinction. If we were, then I would certainly rather have only the high-achievers left alive, as opposed to a representative cross section of society.

Who should be saved?

Max Barry - that's who!

high-achievers left alive.
A stock market tycoon can't live off his or her shares, nor a webdesigner off his flash pages.

Success in modern society does not, I repat, does not indicate survivability or success in society where most of current work force is removed.

I would also like someone to point out an underachiever who's been responsible for serious breaches of human rights: Slavery, holocaust, racial eugenics environmental rapes, unilateral attacks, etc.. are and were all committed by high achievers, intelligent people who thought that for them belongs a greater share because they're worth it.

A stock market tycoon can't live off his or her shares, nor a webdesigner off his flash pages.

Success in modern society does not, I repat, does not indicate survivability or success in society where most of current work force is removed.

I would also like someone to point out an underachiever who's been responsible for serious breaches of human rights: Slavery, holocaust, racial eugenics environmental rapes, unilateral attacks, etc.. are and were all committed by high achievers, intelligent people who thought that for them belongs a greater share because they're worth it.
Oh, the prejudice...

If we were talking about near-extinction, the hourly union wage slaves would not have the vision to rebuild society. High achievers got that way because they have vision and are willing to act. So give me the high achievers any day.

Who should be saved?

Max Barry - that's who!

Suck-up.
:p

Hardly. I certainly expect the survivors to be resilient enough to learn how to do menial work. That's the neat thing about skill; you can always downgrade and do work a few levels beneath your capability. You just can't go the other way.

Really? I'll tell my company they're wasting their time training me then.

I'd have to agree with the study. The idea of deciding who lives and who dies is not one I'd want to make, but if I had to make it, the elderly and the mentally ill would be last on the list to recieve treatment.

Those who are likely to recover with minimal help should be the first to recieve treatment.

Not everyone has the same view on triage, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage#Regional_variation

I'd say that list has the right idea. Some people are probably going to die no matter what you do, so why waste resources? In the military, this is known as triage. Essentially, you help the people who are most likely to survive helping everybody else only when you can spare the resources. If you can't they go without.

Mirkana said it right. It isn't pleasant, but it is how things are.

After all, what doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger.

*shoots Zilam in both kneecaps*

:p

Its not really eugenics. I am just proposing letting nature take its course. Its been like that for the last several hundred million years. Why should we be any better to escape that certain fate?
natural course =/= best course. You are implying a moral code to a natural process. This is foolish.

Me. Dear God, I'm useless.

After the day I had at work today, I would venture to say that my boss should be one of those people who shouldn´t be saved.:p

Stupid question -- Are you Moroccan? How hard is it for a non-citizen to buy real property there? What are you going to farm?

I am not Moroccan but the wife is. We bought about 20 acres total. Fifteen acres of olive groves. Four acres are for the house, out buildings and about 30 head of sheep. There are a few goats too. The caretaker also gets an acre for their home and small plot. I plan to get a couple head of cattle for family use. Beef prices in Morocco are crazy.

As for a foreigner to buy property it is close to the same process as the US. Foreigners have the ability to buy and hold property in Morocco. The loan process is typically 30% down and max 25yr mortgage for foreigners. Native born Moroccans that live abroad can get 100% financing with a 25yr mortgage.

Who should be saved?

Max Barry - that's who!

so he can write a book about what it's like living in a pandemic then?
nah i'm sure he'd find his own way out alive, like rats albeit without the gnawing of wood or disease.

The ill. ;)

Me. Dear God, I'm useless.

but because you've managed to post your thoughts on here, you've already proven that you aren't useless.
so no you're just not logical, that makes more sense.

so he can write a book about what it's like living in a pandemic then?
nah i'm sure he'd find his own way out alive, like rats albeit without the gnawing of wood or disease.

We don't need to decide if Max Barry lives or dies. Why? Because the UN will save us all....... :D