Release the Young

This is not a disease of youth. They should not have to pay (figuratively and literally) for a disease that has a low chance of harming them. In order to provide immunity among a large section of the population (who will be largely unharmed), get schools and universities back to normal, and get people back to work we should make sure that young person can get back in circulation while shielding vulnerable adulta and children. There is no point protecting youngsters from a virus that will not harm them.

Why the contribution is important

Normality to education and business, and restore psychological well being. Protect the elderly and vulnerable and let the young be young!

by Jpleach246 on May 06, 2020 at 09:26PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 3.0
Based on: 25 votes


  • Posted by GillHain May 06, 2020 at 21:47

    But all young people are not invulnerable.
  • Posted by Arturo May 06, 2020 at 21:50

    Look at the data. This virus mainly impacts the older members of the population. Common sense to lift restrictions on those below 65. If the economy fails , the NHS fails and the consequences are severe. Put onus on older people to adopt appropriate social distancing - need to be honest in that it is te older who are in the font line with this.
  • Posted by Nadia_tighe May 06, 2020 at 22:10

    Would you therefore suggest that only females should be allowed to return to work because they are significantly less likely to suffer a severe covid illness than a male? I’d suggest that would be unacceptable. Whilst. I agree that shielded people will have to remain at home, you have to recognise that economy does not consist of only young people. Most work places are run with a wide demographic and it may be that if you prevent older people from returning to work, then many businesses will not open because key staff aren’t there, because the older ones tend to be in the more senior positions.
  • Posted by yebaws May 06, 2020 at 22:18

    Some common sense at last
  • Posted by BUTEMACS May 07, 2020 at 00:07

    Totally disagree! just what we need young folk wandering the streets & parks at weekends & evenings left to their own devices with no where open to go when not in school while their parents have to self isolate & although they seem to be less prone to catch Covid there is no proof they can't spread it by touching stuff or taking it back into their homes, also liked above Nadia_tighe 's points & especially about females.
  • Posted by Shell1923 May 07, 2020 at 00:25

    Since this began only 19people under 45 have died all had underlying health conditions this is from the scotgov figures
  • Posted by WorkingGlasgowMum May 07, 2020 at 03:06

    No way, we don’t know enough to throw our young under the bus.

    And not all people never mind young people are responsible enough to not go wild and gave group gatherings. Let’s see the stats on the age groups the police have had to five for house parties etc.
  • Posted by Fairygodmother May 07, 2020 at 07:35

    Yes protect the shielded and release others to get the economy moving and prevent long term impacts in mental health.
  • Posted by WBRnotes May 07, 2020 at 22:14

    Hmm. I sympathise with some of this since it's true that most young people do not get seriously ill with the virus but some do and some have died. The older you are, the more likely you are to be badly affected. I don't think restrictions should be lifted on all age groups at the same time and definitely not on those aged 60+ who are still at work and have to work with the public or in busy locations. Warwick University has published a paper on a 'rolling age-release strategy' called: Age, Death Risk, and the Design of an Exit Strategy: A Guide for Policymakers and for Citizens Who Want to Stay Alive - I think it makes sense for government to protect older workers while not forcing them into a shielded position - particularly since many of them have returned to the frontline (and in some cases given their lives) to help out. The WHO has long stated that those 60+ are more vulnerable to the virus than those in the younger working population and so far UK - and indeed other - governments - have ignored this information. It doesn't make it any less valid though. So no shielding for those 60-69 but a later 'release' back into the workplace, maintaining social distancing and adequate financial and other protection meantime (I don't entirely agree with the Warwick University paper as regards to the fact that younger people are suffering greater financial hardship - but it's not an area I've researched in depth yet).
  • Posted by joannethin May 09, 2020 at 19:03

    On the data gathered so far I cannot see if the comments have come from young people proportional to the % of young people we have in our society? How are you ensuring this happens and young peoples views are taken into account in decisions ( not many under 25 in parliament?). I am seeing a number of strong stable young peoples mental health under stain including my daughter age 19. Many others are just bending the rules more and more to survive.
    Get Universities back in 'reverse lockdown" in september ie lecturers who have health conditions or older teach remotely but the students go in to Uni. Any who live at home with older relatives are supported to move out or they are remote attendees.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics