Talk

Advanced search

Govt have locked down everyone so they don't piss off their key demographic

(30 Posts)
BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz Sun 24-May-20 00:11:54

The virus affects most those over a certain age. Or, essentially, a large portion of Tory voters.

The simplest thing to do is say
1) everyone over 65 stays home for 6 months
2) everyone with x y and z illnesses also stays home for 6 months
3) everyone under 65 with no known health issues remains working and moving around as usual but tries to keep on top of their handwashing and excess socialising

I honestly believe if this virus mainly affected kids and was known to be spread by kids, those over 65 would insist on going about their daily business and insisting on keeping the kids shut away. So why not the other way around?

ssd Sun 24-May-20 00:14:23

Too late to wonder.

Over 60,000 dead.

Wonder if everyone will still be voting tory next time round.

ChocolatelyAsFuck Sun 24-May-20 00:41:45

I don’t think so because Cummings was advocating for no lockdown at all, in favour of his herd immunity thing, and the government was very late in locking down at all.

It’s hard to see how all 65+ and all medically vulnerable people locking themselves away would work. It’s pointless them staying home if they live with people who are carrying on as normal. To be effective it’d need to be anyone vulnerable plus their households, which would be a enormous number of people - utterly impractical to expect millions of people to lock themselves away for six months.

And who would pay for them? If the government has to pay to keep millions of people home for 6 months, plus find the resources to provide ways of ensuring they all have adequate food delivery, it’d bankrupt the country.

Not to mention the questions of medical appointments and treatments. And would it be voluntary, as it currently is, or enforced, because that would lead to riots.

Besides enough people in the not extremely vulnerable people have caught it, and in many cases died of it, and that’s with strict lockdown and social distancing. Without those measures who knows how many more would have become ill.

HeddaGarbled Sun 24-May-20 00:50:38

The government really, really didn’t want to lock down. They were comfortable with sacrificing the economically expendable for the sake of getting Brexit done etc.

Unfortunately for them, public opinion wasn’t so keen, and as staying in power is paramount, they reluctantly and belatedly locked down in a half-arsed, we-don’t-really-mean-it way. Which is why we have the highest death toll in Europe and close to the highest in the world.

Time2change2 Sun 24-May-20 00:50:52

But that’s just it chocolatey many people in the non vulnerable categories have not died from it. It just seems like they have because of the reporting.
Very interesting question raised by OP - if young people (say 16-30 year olds) were the worst affected, would the over 65’s still have locked down or wanted the young to be shut away

ShinyFootball Sun 24-May-20 00:52:45

I think asking older people to lock themselves away for 6 months would be horrific for many of them.

I would think a fair proportion would rather take their chances than have to do that.

People with a combination of other risk factors, what about them? And their families? What about families who live with an over 65, do they have to lock away as well?

Plus, loads of other countries have locked down across the board who have different voter demographics. So it's not a politically driven decision.

Having said that, our lot are a shambles and a bunch of liars so it's all moot anyway

GreenTulips Sun 24-May-20 01:03:24

What would you have done about care homes? Let them carry on with the younger generation taking care of them?

LillianBland Sun 24-May-20 01:08:44

I honestly believe if this virus mainly affected kids and was known to be spread by kids, those over 65 would insist on going about their daily business and insisting on keeping the kids shut away. So why not the other way around?

Yeah right! You d not think they’d be doing everything in their power to protect the young? Catch yourself on, FFS! It’s a shame Tesco is shut, you could buy some more tinfoil, because I think you’ll need a bigger hat! 🙄

WineHooray Sun 24-May-20 01:24:12

*The simplest thing to do is say
1) everyone over 65 stays home for 6 months
2) everyone with x y and z illnesses also stays home for 6 months
3) everyone under 65 with no known health issues remains working and moving around as usual but tries to keep on top of their handwashing and excess socialising*

Could not agree more!!

I get why they didn't do that initially. But now I think the time has come for us to do exactly this. Now. Please government!!

Pixxie7 Sun 24-May-20 01:31:45

I presume your not 65+. What about those still working given that retirement age is 66. So you think it’s ok for people to work all their lives and then lock themselves away?
A lot of younger people have been seriously ill and died. So how would this solve the problem.
I think you need to rethink this.

ChocolatelyAsFuck Sun 24-May-20 01:37:17

It’s obviously not practical to lock millions of working people up for six months.

The economy would tank, and unless it was enforced by law (which would be a human rights nightmare) people simply wouldn’t comply.

And without lockdown and social distancing the number of non-extremely vulnerable people being seriously ill would shoot up.

Bramblebear92 Sun 24-May-20 01:42:22

For people saying we can't lock down people for 6+ months. I would agree but we're not far off the halfway point for the general population. Until I'm able to go back to work and pay my bills again and see family and OH I won't consider lock down 'over.' Way we're going it looks like many of us WILL be locked down close to six months anyway unless things start changing quite rapidly.

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz Sun 24-May-20 01:45:38

A lot of younger people have been seriously ill and died

This just isn't true. Certainly not of those without pre-existing conditions.

I'm not saying "lock away the workforce"

I'm saying "lock away those for whom it is known this is probably fatal and put everyone else out there to keep on working"

ChocolatelyAsFuck Sun 24-May-20 02:04:30

That depends very much on what you consider “a lot”. Clearly young healthy people have died. How many deaths do you consider “a lot”? How many more deaths would we have if we ended lockdown/social distancing for all but the most vulnerable?

And you keep talking about young healthy people vs those in the “extremely vulnerable” category. But there are many millions of people who fall between these two groups. What are they supposed to do?

Yes we’ve been in lockdown for 2 months but even at the height of lockdown we were still allowed to go out every day, go shopping, and go to work. What the OP is suggesting is far more restrictive than that.

Millions of people with health conditions that make them vulnerable ARE in work. And many millions more live with vulnerable people.

Flaxmeadow Sun 24-May-20 02:28:33

This just isn't true. Certainly not of those without pre-existing conditions

But how many would die without the lockdown? Probably hundreds of thousands and the health service would be overwhelmed

Pixxie7 Sun 24-May-20 02:29:22

I think 1 is to many but we know over 150 nhs workers have died.

Namenic Sun 24-May-20 02:37:53

OP - the effect of high infection will be greater on the shielding population even if they are shielding.

This is because they often need care (home or in care homes) and medical appointments due to their conditions (which are why they are shielding).

Namenic Sun 24-May-20 02:43:52

I think they should split into regions with roadblocks. Then set up test,isolate, trace in places with low infection. And start lifting the restrictions locally there. Yes - there will be people who have to be furloughed due to living in different places from work, but I think it would allow greater local freedom.

It is silly to think that everywhere in England is ready to exit lockdown at the same time.

Lalala205 Sun 24-May-20 04:14:49

Umm, essentially nobody can be 'locked away', unless they commit a crime or its deemed necessary for their own well-being or the sake of the public. I think there's plenty of 65+ gen who'd be seriously pissed off if they were physically forced to remain in their home for the foreseeable (for their own good). People aren't stupid, everyone knows what's happening. Older people know damn fine they currently aren't the front of the NHS queue. Would the over 65's be demanding their children/grandchildren be locked down to screw the economy over in 6mth? I seriously doubt it!? Pensions still need to come from a pot so realistically they'd be financially fucked anyway.... Nothing to do with 'Tory voters', its a worldwide pandemic.

LiveGr33n Sun 24-May-20 07:10:38

It would need to be anybody overweight and BAME people too. Completely unworkable.

BigChocFrenzy Sun 24-May-20 07:33:54

Not possible to compulsorily lock down only the 65+ for their good
Probably wouldn't stand up in court
Also, would take a huge amount of police time to enforce - as with buying alcohol, in practice most adults would have to carry ID showing their age

It's totally different to locking down people so as not to harm others

When it comes to their own health, people should be allowed to choose to take the risk

BigChocFrenzy Sun 24-May-20 07:41:06

"I honestly believe if this virus mainly affected kids and was known to be spread by kids, those over 65 would insist on going about their daily business and insisting on keeping the kids shut away. "

Rubbish !

scaevola Sun 24-May-20 07:43:45

The very vulnerable were locked down, more than that - put behind a shield.

The flu jab group were urged to follow lockdown to the letter

Everyone else was also urged to lockdown properly (unless you have a 4yo who needs safeguarding because one of two parts as symptoms)

And still,we have 60,000 deaths - and it would have been more if there had nit been extensive repurposing of NHS to infectious disease care.

So that's thebflaw with your plan, OP. If the proportion of the country who is showing antibodies really is only 17%, then a major secinfpd spike is possible. Even if younger people do not die, the number who are ill for over 3 weeks will cause workplaces to fail for lack of staff

Uncontrolled peak would cause vastly more damage than lockdown.

And the only reason it has seemed unthreatening for those lucky ones who are in normal health, not contemplating pregnancy, and whose nearest and dearest are also young and healthy; is that lockdown worked. It was a success. The peak was flattened.

FuckeryOmbudsman Sun 24-May-20 07:44:59

"I honestly believe if this virus mainly affected kids and was known to be spread by kids, those over 65 would insist on going about their daily business and insisting on keeping the kids shut away. "

It's just a pile of crap and shows you 'honestly' believe ageust stereotypes.

MarginalGain Sun 24-May-20 07:56:11

I think 1 is to many but we know over 150 nhs workers have died.

Please read the ONS analysis. They're not disproportionately affected and I doubt it's a million miles off the usual rate of NHS workers dying (I haven't been able to find these statistics, that would be the sensible way of contextualising the deaths of workers in any sector).

Johnson was appeasing Twitter et al.

The virus first hit China, which decided to lock down. Then it hit Europe, which decided to follow Caring China's example and lock down so that they could demonstrate that they were taking covid19 deaths seriously.

Johnson initially thought he'd go the way of Sweden, but the other European countries had shown that they were caring by prioritising the reduction of covid19 deaths above all else and so he had to either be brave or follow suit so he decided the latter.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »