To think the Covid 19 crisis has revealed a scourge of ableism and ageism in our society?

[Madhairday]

I see it on every thread about lockdown. The elderly (over 60s) and vulnerable (of whatever age) are again and again dehumanised and cast as less worthy of help than the young and the fit, who should be prioritised because they have longer and healthier life left before them. Phrases like one I saw just now about how these people will die soon anyway so why are children suffering?

I am really tired of being othered. I am really tired of being made the reason for the suffering endured by many in lockdown. Really tired of being told I should be grateful others are suffering for me. Just really tired.

Before all this I'd never have dreamed these attitudes would come to light, but in the past months I've been repeatedly punched in the gut with some of the words thrown out against the aged and the disabled and chronically ill. It seems that we truly live in a world where not all lives are equal, where in fact many are worth less than others.

Lots of people are suffering due to lockdown and the effects will continue to cause suffering. The shielded know this and are affected by it as much as everyone else. I have lost my income as well as not being able to touch another human being for nearly 3 months. Many of my shielded friends mental health is shot, too, yet on threads about mental health the shielded are yet again othered and in fact blamed for the mental health issues of those not shielding.

Many are suffering in lockdown. We know this. We know the NHS has cut off much treatment (largely because the spread of covid in hospitals is so uncontainable that they cannot risk bringing already vulnerable people onto wards as covid would exacerbate conditions and kill in greater numbers, as well as the risk for frontline staff, yet many people here seem to think the NHS has narrowed down 'because only covid deaths are important to them' )

I am deeply concerned at the level of ableism and ageism I see on here every single day at the moment. If we said someone else's life mattered less because they were black or gay we would rightly be torn to pieces, but so many are saying lives are less due to age and vulnerability, and this is going unchallenged, again and again and again.

I see it. I see it every day. I feel it deep down, a sense of worthlessness because I have long term chronic illnesses. I am likely to live many more years, however, but that doesn't fit in with the narrative so many have built around the shielded and those dying of Covid, that they must be near death anyway.

Do lives really rank one over the other due to age and illness? Is this where we are now?

I agree lockdown is hurting people. I am not one of the lockdown should last forever people. I'm just getting on with shielding quietly and carefully. But I do fear for a second wave if it's relaxed too quickly.

I would like to ask for some compassion today in the way people speak. I'd like to ask that people don't denegrate others as less worthy or state that covid is just a bad cold. Have a care for those who feel othered and dehumanised by the rhetoric that flies at us day after day.

Mittens because someone said this

'But the death of a 95 year old who has lived a full life is not as tragic as the death of a teenager with their whole life ahead of them.

It is for the 95 year old and their family'

And naturally in response people are sharing stories of where people that agree have died in their families who were that age and the families didn't feel that the loss was tragic, including one who had lost a young person in the family and shared how devastating that was.

If people don't want people to share stories like this, then best not to state that a family will find the death of a 95 yo as much as the loss of a child because naturally people will respond.

@ ShinyFootball but what about the death of a 45 year old with underlying medical conditions? Presumably their death might not be all that unexpected either, so does that make them expendable as well or should we consider their death to be less tragic than a child?

Or what about an actual child who only has a short time left to live?

This mythical 95 year old actually represents everyone who has less time to live. So if you’re saying that the death of a 95 year old is less tragic then you’re saying that the death of someone with a life limited or terminal condition is less tragic, what with them being expected to die soon n all.

My grandfather's death at 97 wasn't a tragedy.

If people are going to say that it is a tragedy and families will feel it as much as the death of a child then they're going to get people responding.

If that poster hadn't claimed that then those posts wouldn't have been posted on response.

That was one person's story. But others have shared their stories, including me. I haven't died but I've been unwell for weeks with this wretched virus, and my DH is vulnerable too, as he has asthma. But he's in good health otherwise and has many years ahead of him hopefully. He's 55 and I'm 50 and we have DDs of 11 and 8.

Those who have underlying health problems are not necessarily old or going to die in a year's time.

Why focus on the one story that proves your point? Because I would agree with you on that point, and the majority of posters would agree too. My DM is 80; losing her to the virus would be sad and I would obviously grieve for her, but losing one of my DDs would be a horrible tragedy, and that's how my DM would see it that way too.

But compared to the demographic of those who are classed as vulnerable, there are less 95 year olds in fact than people who are classed as vulnerable.

If that 95 year old’s death isn’t a tragedy, as I already asked, what of the 45 year old who is expected to die soon? Should that not be considered a tragedy because there are healthy people who aren’t expected to die?

As I said, this 95 year old is being used as a justification to discriminate against everyone with a life limiting condition. After all, if there’s a likelihood/possibility you’re going to die soon anyway then it’s not a tragedy if that happens to be today, even if you’re not 95.

www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/a-miracle-baby-and-gifted-teen-sally-maaz-17-loses-her-fight-for-life-after-covid-19-diagnosis-39169607.html Or this young lady she was vulnerable but not dying studying for her dream to be a doctor.

I suspect that many of the people demanding the end of lockdown or declare it shouldn't have happened in the first place don't know anyone who has had the infection let alone become seriously ill or died because of it.

(I am not demanding end of lockdown, but agree we should be on the path to do so) Some of us are worried about the non- covid issues. The extra dementia deaths, those dying alone and undiscovered maybe because they hadn't sought help when they needed it, people not receiving care and services they need.

We can't avoid death by covid at all costs, when all costs is people dying of other causes, or having significantly reduced quality of life. By shielding someone at home (reduced risk of covid) we may have caused a decline in mobility (increased risk of falls and the potential snowball effect that can happen after a fall).

I don't know the answer, but mass lockdown probably isn't it.

Nearly half of all deaths are in those aged 85+. That is quite significant. Now I'm not a monster. I don't think they should be thrown to the wolves. I don't think they're worthless human beings. I'm not happy to see them all die. I do however question whether their deaths are such a tragedy it's worth sacrificing the economy, people's mental health, physical health and our children's education. I think the vulnerable should be protected as much as possible but not to the extent that we are on a path of destruction for the rest of society.

Lockdown shouldn't go on forever, I agree with you. But not because the people at risk don't matter. However, sooner or later, we have to find a way of living with the risk of the virus. When I was in Africa, I learned that the risk of malaria was always there (I had it once), but people didn't panic at the sight of a mosquito. You take whatever precautions you can, mosquito nets and repellent, and take prophylactics.

Sadly, a friend of mine died of cerebral malaria not long after my stay in his house. There will be more deaths from COVID-19. There have been too many deaths because of government incompetence, and testing and contact tracing should never have stopped. Hopefully they'll do better now, but I'm not confident, sadly.

We've sent DD1 back to school, as that was the right thing for her. It's not fair on our DC for lockdown to go on forever. We're taking what precautions we can but life has to go on.

I want focusing on the one story that 'proves my point'. I'm not sure what you think my point even is.

I responded to a poster who said that losing a 95 yo is as tragic to a family as losing a young person/ child.

It's a mind boggling statement. I'm surprised there are so many people having a go at me and the others who said, hold on a minute. Not just because it seems to imply that people who didn't feel it was a tragedy when a very elderly relative died, as much as they would or have when a child dies, are lacking in something in their emotional makeup.

It was NiceLegsShameAboutTheFace who said it was as tragic, it's their only post on the thread.

Would be interesting to see how they feel about those who have shared their personal stories of losing family members in response to it. And whether she believes they are emotionally stunted, or what.

Stating the fact that the risk is not equal, is not othering. It is important that people understand risk. Obviously on any one day, and all other things being equal, an old person is more likely to die than a young person. Equally, all other things being equal, unhealthy people are more likely to die earlier than healthy people. This isn't rudeness, or ableism, or hatred, simply a fact of life, because we are mortal.

Nobody has said that it is stating the risk that is othering or ableist/ageist language. We have repeatedly recounted our experience of more serious dehumanising in the use of inflammatory language about how 'the vulnerable were going to die anyway' (just one eg). We all know the facts and we know that we are more at risk; that fact does not offend me. It is a virus, I cannot be offended by a biological entity. But I am offended when language used makes my life lesser and makes me feel as if society would be better off if I just moved over nicely (or died, in fact.)

As I said, this 95 year old is being used as a justification to discriminate against everyone with a life limiting condition. After all, if there’s a likelihood/possibility you’re going to die soon anyway then it’s not a tragedy if that happens to be today, even if you’re not 95.

This.

Then your disability doesn't affect your risk

What??? That's why I'm shielding then - because it doesn't affect my risk.

You have literally no idea what you are talking about. I'm immunosuppressed. My risk, should I catch it is high. Being immunocompromised doesn't mean I'm going to die earlier than anyone else.

Again, this is not a lockdown advocacy thread. I am neither married to extended lockdown or against lockdown as it was carried out. I am, for this thread, concerned with language that leaves already vulnerable people feeling even more useless and lesser than society has already forced them to feel over years of austerity.

What are you on about OP. My able children still aren’t getting and education. My able children stayed in lockdown thoughout while I watched from our window the elderly residents of my village nip to the local newsagents for their daily paper. Golf and crown green bowling are back on but my children still can’t go on a playground. I think we all know which age groups have been put first.

And still people are spectacularly missing the point.

This isn’t about wanting lockdown to stay indefinitely. I have said myself on other threads that we will need to find a way to live with COVID, even those with underlying conditions. After all the immune suppressed are at risk of any condition at any one time.

But the issue constantly being brought out here is that people seem to think that those who are at grater risk should continue to be locked away so that the rest can get on with their lives. Can people really not see how that comes across?

Let’s put it another way then.

You’re perfectly healthy, you’re out there merrily getting on with your life because as a healthy person you’re now out of lockdown, and the non healthy are still locked away so you have nothing to fear.

You walk out into the road and are hit by a car. You’re taken into hospital and the prognosis is that your pancreas is severely damaged thus meaning that as of now you are severely diabetic.

And so, after the dr’s deliver this prognosis they then go on to deliver another one:

“Sorry, I know you wanted to go back to having your normal life, but because of COVID you now need to stay locked away for your own safety, and so that others who are healthy can go about getting on with their lives.

So not only do you then have to cope with a life-limiting diagnosis, but also with the fact that you’ve now been re-categorised as one of them

You see, we’re all just a car crash away from being life-limited.

At least you can hug your child though @carycy. Dh can't unless we all shield until the end of June. He also is immunosuppressed due to medication. He is a fully functioning member of society and is working from home probably for the forseeable helping keeping things going by paying taxes etc.
Our kids are also missing school, the park, their prom, exams and hugs from their dad. Dh really needs an op but it is too risky right now. Not NHS as waiting lists were too long even before COVID.
Believe me I want things to get back to normal as much as anyone but the virus has to be more under control.
Sadly so many people seem to think they can do what they want because the virus only affects the old and people on their last legs.
We as a family accept we have to adapt to this new normal right now but as op says it hurts when we see how we are referred to as low hanging fruit or words to this affect. "The problem is that our Country is overpopulated. This is just thinning things out to an acceptable level" etc etc.

Children of shielded parents will struggle going back to school because of the increased risk to their parent.

It would be great if they could go back but then you have to be sure that all other families at school will abide by the rules.

On another thread someone posted a school newsletter - PHE have informed the school that a pupil has tested positive and so now the bubble and give staff are isolating. The real kicker is that the child had the test on the Thursday but continued going to school until the results came back the following week. Apparently the parents decided not to tell school or self isolate until results came back.

It's a real worry @hear.
I saw that post too and it was only day two. I wonder how many more bubbles will burst due to such selfishness.

@Northernsoulgirl45

It is incredibly selfish. People are happy to demand that they be allowed to get back to normal and the vulnerable can be locked away. Why should people have to be locked away when actually everyone could follow the rules and do the right thing? Then perhaps more of us could have a bit of freedom too.

It is for the 95 year old and their family

It's not tragic. It's sad to lose a parent or grandparent but you can't say the death of someone at 95 is "tragic" even if they were really hoping to get to 100.

My father died at 93. It was sad but it wasn't tragic. My uncle died at 90 and my aunt at 86 within 6 weeks of each other. And my grandmothers respectively died at 91 and 101! None of those deaths was tragic.

When my other uncle died at the age of 19 at the end of WW2, THAT was tragic.

That family not self isolating was completely wrong and is against all the advice that has ever been in place. Maybe I am too trusting that people would actually stick to the headline advice.

@TheGreatWave

That family not self isolating was completely wrong and is against all the advice that has ever been in place. Maybe I am too trusting that people would actually stick to the headline advice.

Well quite. It seems very unfair particularly on the staff but also any child who might have vulnerable or shielding family members.

That’s hard Northern. But a lot of people are making it sound like they want those are low risk to suffer as much as they have to. It isn’t a race to the bottom. Surely those that are able need to get the economy going again as soon as possible. Otherwise the vulnerable will suffer in other ways very soon.

Otherwise the vulnerable will suffer in other ways very soon.

I have to say, as someone who's shielding, with no end in sight, it's quite hard to imagine how my life can get much worse.

How do you imagine everyone else getting back to normal is going to help the vulnerable?