Shocking article

Hear hear POGS and Baggs ?

He is talking a load of tosh.

Below is the opening paragraph of a report issued by Age UK in 2017. The author, Prof José Iparraguirre, is an economist specialising in economics and aging

The monetary value of the direct economic contribution of employment, informal caring, including childcare,and volunteering by people aged 50 or over in the United Kingdom in 2016/17 amounted to £796bn (approx. 45per cent of Gross Value Added), of which people aged 65 or over contributed with £160 bn. Employment contribution amountedto £570bn(£ 54 bn from 65+);informal caring activities added another £175bn(£ 95 bn), informal childcare was worth £7.7bn (only estimated for those aged 65 or over) and volunteering represented another £43.4bn(£ 2.7 bn) www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/reports-and-publications/reports-and-briefings/active-communities/the_economic_contribution_of_older_-people_-update_-to_-2017.pdf

My money is on the Age UK report and their expert in economics and aging who wrote it, than any journalist, looking fr a cheap sensationalist byline. He'll learn.

M0nica

'He is talking a load of tosh.'
----
WHO?

'My money is on the Age UK report and their expert in economics and aging who wrote it, than any journalist, looking fr a cheap sensationalist byline. He'll learn.'

WHO?

What is your connection to Age Concern and the article in question, I must be missing something.

POGS It seems to me that if someone claims we are a drag on the economy then we need to look for the real figures about the contribution older people make to the economy.

I did a straight forward google search and found this report written for AgeUK by an economist who is an expert on economics and aging. His report shows that the total contribution to the British economy by people over 65 is: £160bn.

I found another slightly older report published in 2011 WRVS (with whom I have no connections). They showed that

In 2010, over 65s made an astonishing net contribution of £40 billion to the UK economy through, amongst other contributions, taxes, spending power, social care and the value of their volunteering. In spite of future costs around providing pensions, welfare and health services to a larger and longer living population of older people in the UK, over 65s’ net economic contribution will actually grow to £77 billion by 2030.

In other words the author of the DT report was talking tosh. Older people, even extremely old people, are not a drag on the economy, on the contraray we continue to make a contribution until we die.

Monica

'POGS It seems to me that if someone claims we are a drag on the economy then we need to look for the real figures about the contribution older people make to the economy.'
-

Have you read the article, not the link GNHQ put forward?

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/03/03/does-fed-know-something-rest-us-do-not-panicked-interest-rate/

The article is discussing related financial matters such as Interest Rates, Bull Markets, Stock Markets, Shares et al. through the actions predominantly by the US Fed/Federal Reserve.

I do not see any attempt by Jeremy Warner in his article that
' claims anybody is a drag on the econony'. COVID 19 obviously is as he mentions.

Can you provide where in the article you feel Warner is making such a judgement as I do respect you as a poster and want to understand where / why we are so far apart in the context of the article, not the one paragraph that has been pounced on by the OP/GNHQ.

How to think about the corona virus: a primer. Very interesting and, I think, well-rounded article from an epidemiologist who writes for the American Scholar magazine.

However much we dont like it, it is the elderly and vulnerable that are going to succumb first to Corona Virus, moreover when resources are limited who do you give help to, the young other wise healthy young person or a 90 yr old with other serious problems.

Someone has to make that decision, you don’t like it, I don’t like it but if you only have one intensive care bed you give it to the young person surely.

You can intellectualise to your hearts content but it is awful language to use. No, I won't be signing up to the Telegraph any time soon to read it.

We cannot be culling various groups of people because they are economically inactive can we? Mind you some people have already been starved into submission.

Baggs the article you mention is very measured and interesting. Thank You.

A young and otherwise healthy person may very well only experience mild symptoms and not require hospitalisation. In fact, in all probability, will recover without medical intervention.

David turn your equation round you have an otherwise fit and healthy older person or a young person with several pre-existing conditions that make survival very slim. Who 'surely' gets the intensive care bed then?

The choices will not be between the young and fit and the old and ill. It becomes between two people with competing justifications for getting the one IC bed.

Monica

Have you noticed my question to you yesterday.

Have you read the article, not the link GNHQ put forward?

Can you provide where in the article you feel Warner is making such a judgement as I do respect you as a poster and want to understand where / why we are so far apart in the context of the article, not the one paragraph that has been pounced on by the OP/GNHQ.

Baggs, that's an excellent article you mentioned. Thank-you.

Blah blah blah. Its vile to talk of culling.

I can't see anythng wrong with discussing the effects of the virus on our economy, and part of that would be the deaths of the elderly and infirm. It may not be palatable but some facts aren't. However I think it might have been wiser to consider the possible further effects. If the virus does not only cull the elderly using the care and health systems but extends into the slightly younger section of older people, those responsible for child care, volunteering and general unpaid support the the economy could be seriously damaged as families struggle to cope.

I sent you a pm trisher

Greymar, it's a different article people are talking about now and we've got the point about you disapproving of the word culling. The new link is not the Telegraph article where the word culling was used. BTW, would killing have been any more acceptable? If I remember rightly, Werner had already used the word killing (killing is what the virus is doing to some, remember).

The newer link. How to think about the coronavirus: a primer by Philip Aleabes in American Scholar.

Oops. I think you've seen it. The blah, blah, blah comment confused me.

*Alcabes

Baggs, I have tried my damnest to be pleasant but " we've got the point" doesn't help.

I think this thing is very challenging and frightening. The language used is important. Talk of culling and herd ,is not kind to me. But never mind. I don't have the energy for a scrap. Son is unwell.

"Blah, blah, blah. It's vile to talk of culling" when everyone had stopped talking of culling doesn't help either, greymar. It's puzzling, which is why I commented.

I hope your son gets better soon.

A time delay Baggs, I tend to go away and think about things.

Culling is a deliberate action to promote the survival of the fittest, whereas this would not be deliberate.

At least, we don't believe it is!!

Oh, I see. Thanks, greymar.

Baggs
What a great piece. I loved the quote The story began not with the outbreak, the story began with the story
How true.
Everyone worrying should read this.