Do Not Discriminate Against Older People

The older generation is used to discipline and have been following guidelines not only out of respect but also because they know that without widespread testing no one knows who is carrying the virus. They are keen to avoid catching the virus. The older generation are the ones who move off the pavement whilst out walking to ensure that the 2 metre distancing is maintained, others are not always so vigilant. Many older people before this outbreak went for rambling walks in groups, or with their partners, or played golf this latter sport affording good exercise not only of their legs but their whole bodies over anything from 2 to 4 hours, and caters for their emotional well-being. A huge amount of gardening has been done but the Councils were not collecting garden refuse and the recycling centres are closed, how frustrating!
Naturally people of all ages are becoming restless, there is more traffic on the roads, family members are risking meeting each other in open spaces, taking matters into their own hands. It is wrong for the government to generalise and contemplate restricting the older generation whilst reducing restrictions for younger people many of whom are not as fit or as disciplined. Members of the older generation are perfectly capable of looking out for their own well-being.

Open golf clubs for members only, open garden centres, open recycling sites restricting use on each day to those with surnames beginning with specified letters of the alphabet for that day, to curtail numbers. Any reduction in restrictions should apply to everyone.

Why the contribution is important

People need to take responsibility for themselves, the government needs to do more to get the economy moving and concentrate on tracing those who may be carriers. Older people are now well equipped with knowledge about the virus and are best placed to decide how to protect themselves and what they are capable of doing but are being prevented from partaking in their normal physical activities which could lead to an increase in negative health issues.

by Alertover70 on May 09, 2020 at 11:01PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.3
Based on: 13 votes


  • Posted by scottie234 May 10, 2020 at 08:45

    Agree that people should be responsible enough to make the right decisions based on the advice given. Not all will do so however.
  • Posted by ProudBIL May 10, 2020 at 09:27

    It’s not discrimination to try to protect the people who are most at risk. We have to try to find a pragmatic way of managing the impact of this virus, including the economic impact. This is not just a question of personal liberty: it is overwhelmingly older people who end up with serious complications and put pressure on hospitals and care workers. Older people are also far less likely to have jobs and young children.

    If everyone is forced to wait to lift the lockdown until the most at risk would also be safe then there may be no way back from the devastation. Asking older people to continue protecting themselves in order to reduce the crippling impact on the generations who still need to go to work to feed their families is not unreasonable.
  • Posted by FM79 May 10, 2020 at 10:10

    Restrictions or guidance around shielding etc should be based on quantified scientific evidence of risk of negative outcome from covid, not just blanket rules. Age is one factor in determining risk of a negative outcome from covid, but not clear that age alone is a factor in itself, so keeping people locked at home based on age seems draconian and a bit pointless. A blanket rule based on age alone is discriminatory and not proven to really make any difference. Underlying health conditions and obesity are bigger factors than age alone as far as I'm aware from the scientific research done so far into covid deaths, but the media aren't making statements about keeping overweight people on lockdown! More research needs to be done and made available to fully understand who and why deaths are happening with all relevant factors considered.
  • Posted by Emax2020 May 10, 2020 at 10:54

    Agree with FM79. Age is only one factor albeit an important one that increases risk. We need a more intelligent approach. Mightily amused by the idea that we should protect the overweight and have them stay home! I suspect there will be a few more of us in this category post lockdown than there were before!
  • Posted by GarethMorgan May 10, 2020 at 17:28

    This makes sense, but I think there are several issues here that need untangling.

    (a) Most people have littke understanding of the difference between the restrictions in the Regulations and the behaviour that is encouraged in Guidance, and I am concerned that official statements do not seem to clarify this issue. This must be clearer going forward. I am keen for the Scottish Government to encourage socially beneficial behaviour by appealing to people's sense of morality and concern for others - but the Govenment must avoid implying things are mandatory if they are in not the Regulations.

    NB For those who want to refer to the Regulations they are "The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020" SSI 2020/103 available at (they have subsequently been very slightly amended by SSI 2020/126).

    (b) There is nothing in the Regulations requiring people over 70 to behave differently from anyone else. So older people are feel free to make their own decisions about how far they feel they wish to follow government guidance on self-isolation etc. But clearly as we know the risks are greater for older people they may wish to take more care.

    (c) But since we know the virus is very unlikely to be transmitted between people outdoors who are 2metres apart it clearly cannot be wrong for people of any age to meet up outside if they stay 2m apart.

    (d) Perhaps those in the shielded category might wish to avoid any external contact, even at 2metres+ but that has to be their choice. It is one things for the state to recommend people to stay at home for their own safety, but what is absolutely not acceptable is for the state to place people under house arrest if they have done no wrong.

    (c) However, I do not think there is anything fundamentally d

    eappbut not make in mandatory (with penalties for those who dis
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas