Restrict l/down to over 65s and those with health issues

Full lockdown imposed on everyone who is 65 or older. The stats show these are the main people dying. Many are healthy and fitter than 30 year olds but the stats don't lie. This is the group at risk. Anyone with certain health conditions should be forced to abide by lockdown. Yes there is a still a risk for those under 65 and no known health condition but equally this is the same risk as the workers still working in the public right now. It sounds unfair, but is it fair to destroy the lives of so many when there is another way?

Why the contribution is important

It protects the population who are largely at risk. It gets the economy back. It improves the lives of many for which a select few will pay a price of lockdown. It is in the greater interest. Why lockdown everyone and destroy the economy when we know who the main target of this killer is.

by Youwontlikeit on May 08, 2020 at 02:18PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 2.0
Based on: 15 votes

Comments

  • Posted by Fionabr64 May 08, 2020 at 14:25

    I agree somewhat but we need to go further- my suggestion is to risk assess everyone and base shielding on what we know leads to worse outcomes when you catch Covid 19. Factors like obesity, heart disease, sex, race, smoking, high blood pressure etc- we know what makes Covid 19 worse now- lets use what we have painfully learned. Shield those most at risk and let the rest of the population get back to work and back to their lives- we are in for the long haul on this one and we cannot keep to a lockdown forever.

  • Posted by Sunnysideup May 08, 2020 at 14:28

    Totally agree

    Need to stop losing perspective of bigger picture and the consequences lockdown has on everyone

    Protect the few so that the many can keep the country running and their sanity

  • Posted by archiemcbeastie May 08, 2020 at 14:31

    Not such a great idea when so many grandparents that age are both fit and well and undertaking child care arrangements which enable their grandchildren to be cared for while their parents work. The loss of this service on a national scale would cause chaos.

  • Posted by Elkie May 08, 2020 at 14:31

    When the next pandemic selectively strikes down the 20 - 50 year old population, are we going to let the elderly and the children run the country?
    Maybe a weekly visit to an ICU at hospital should be made compulsory for everyone, so the doctors and nurses are not the only ones who have to watch so many people dying.

  • Posted by Julie May 08, 2020 at 14:37

    Age discrimination, pure and simple (and illegal).

    Those who are obese, unfit, drink too much, use drugs etc are at more risk than a fit 65 year old,

    The statistics also show that certain groups are at risk regardless of age, do you propose to lock them al down as well?

  • Posted by benbristow May 08, 2020 at 14:47

    Definitely agree. Protect the vulnerable, let those who COVID-19 won't affect as much get back to their lives. Will make it easier to look after them too as a simple grocery drop-off wouldn't be such an event.

    It's not age discrimination, it's backed by evidence and for their own protection.

  • Posted by NadineH May 08, 2020 at 14:56

    I suspect most people think the age cut off should be above their own! The risks of severe or fatal COVID infection are higher in older people (mainly >75 and mainly male for deaths) but most of these have several underlying health conditions which increase their risk, and which are commoner the older you get. I would favour restrictions being targeted at those at greater risk for health reasons rather than age.

  • Posted by John1911 May 08, 2020 at 15:07

    Not sure about the age, but vulnerable groups absolutely should be sheltering while the rest of us get on with developing herd immunity so we can exit this mess earlier.
    For those concerned about equality, I'd say that sheltering advice should be strong, but not enforceable by law. People must have the freedom to chose. Clearly, anyone daft enough in the sheltering groups to put themselves in danger should understand the very real risk, hence the strong advice.
    Denying everyone freedom to protect a minority is fundamentally wrong. How long can our government hold us prisoner before compliance collapses? I'd say prepare for larger scale shielding because more groups are vulnerable, and let us go.

  • Posted by Youwontlikeit May 08, 2020 at 15:08

    I think taking it further is an idea, such as obesity etc. Harder to implement for many reasons but if can be fine tuned, brilliant. I'm a smoker so that may force me to be one of the ones locked down in this scenario. So be it. The loss of childcare would be chaos , is it going to be more chaotic than right now, c'mon. If certain groups are at risk and can be identified easily then yes. I dont understand this rhetoric of discrimination. It's for the benefit of society. Why destroy so much for so few.

  • Posted by Youwontlikeit May 08, 2020 at 15:10

    When the next pandemic hits 20 to 50 year olds. Your comment is ridiculous using hypothetical future pandemic scenarios. But I'll appease you.. if your future pandemic strikes then no , children cant run the country but the older age group will need to pitch in more. Satisfied? You address a problem by looking at who the problem is. It's not nice, its supposedly discrimination but it is what it is.

  • Posted by sixboys May 08, 2020 at 15:40

    If the young and fit start mixing a lot the amount of virus between them will increase which will increase the death and illness level within this "safe" group and lead to more deaths, it can be difficult to know who is most at risk and it would be very unfair to force compliance based only on age. A high level of virus in any part of the population puts the rest eg nursing homes at risk not forgetting of course the hospital staff.

  • Posted by mikecon May 08, 2020 at 19:43

    Ageism again. Please don't make blanket statements. It is totally unfair to force /make compliance to lockdown on age alone .Specific underlying health conditions play a major part also. The statement on why the contribution is important shows the true colours -" improves the lives of the many "with little concern for the over 65's

  • Posted by Youwontlikeit May 09, 2020 at 12:18

    Yes the mumber of young and fit affected by the virus will increase. The stats show that they have a significantly smaller chance of dying. Yes if the figures balloon then you need to resort back to full lockdown but stats suggest this is unlikely. It is unfair for a blanket ban on the over 65s. Its unfair for a blanket ban on everyone too. Its unfair that those who likely have immunity now cant just go as they please. It's not about fairness. It's about getting the country moving again. It's not nice for the over 65s having to be put in lockdown but it's for their benefit. The data shows they make up something like 90 per cent of cases. Like it or not but they are the main contributor to these horrible stats. Im sure , given the positive way people gave acted during this crisis, that we would do everything to raise the spirits of those over 65s at home. Visiting them at windows to provide entertainment, chat clapping etc. Its a horrible but logical solution that gets us back on track quicker

  • Posted by activeandvibrant May 10, 2020 at 18:00

    Can’t believe people are actually supporting this idea!! Absolute nonsense to incarcerate people for no reason - what forever? When you reach 65 your life will be over and you will be locked up. Surely these people are not serious? Just posting to see who will bite?

  • Posted by activeandvibrant May 10, 2020 at 18:02

    Sorry should have added to above. “The stats don’t lie” - must be the giveaway!

  • Posted by black54 May 10, 2020 at 18:56

    this is actually statistically untrue - men aged 45 to 64 are at a bigger risk than women aged 65 and over: I will say I have a vested interest here I am now 65. I don't think I should be suddenly sht in my house when I was working and studying just a few weeks ago and only just reached a particular birthday. If we take this route, we can start picking out all sorts of groups - men are more vulnerable than women, BAME than non BAME. We cannot discriminate in this way Absolutely Not

  • Posted by Zaffarella May 11, 2020 at 17:06

    I fully appreciate there are difficult choices, however, social distancing continued much longer will ultimately kill more people than Covid 19 and certainly kill society. Government must be greatest good for greatest number.
    Now that lockdown has gained the time to put capacity in place the “stay safe” narrative will need to change to reflect;
    Fatal for less than 1%
    Vast majority (over 80%) asymptomatic or mild; relatively few have required hospitalisation.
    Current strain is fairly narrow in its target.
    People die; in Scotland 4,700 people, on average, each month every year (average 2001-2019 per NRS). There were 1,559 Covid deaths in Scotland as at 2 May. Many of those dying with Covid 19 on the death certificate (but not necessarily a contributory factor) would have died in any event this year.
    May never be vaccine; it would wrong and very costly to society at large to wait for one – accordingly we must manage this.
    Covid 19 now endemic and should be dealt with like any other perennial virus.
    Going forward Covid 19 can be managed by creating capacity (Infectious diseases hospitals?). Unfortunately, those in care homes are amongst the most susceptible to the virus, some form of gateway regime or system for entrance to care homes will be required.
    Fitness (substantially issues caused by obesity) makes a massive difference to outcome; this is an opportunity to reinforce that being fit will save lives and the NHS
    I am glad to see that the Swedish approach has now been commended by the WHO as an exemplar for moving forward. Although it has controls, it has allowed more social interaction. This approach will certainly have reduced any “future wave”. As at 11 May, the UK (with a population 6.56 times that of Sweden) has had 31,855 deaths. Sweden has recorded 3,225 deaths. That is 66.4% of the UK total. The Swedish approach has to be considered, as it is less damaging to society and the economy at large.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas