lockdown for over 50's

[hullabaloo68]

As its been muted that over 50's may have to be in lockdown AIBU to think employers will be very reluctant to employ anyone in this age group

I think the government has unofficially floated a number of ideas in order to engage reaction, so whatever they do may be more acceptable.

A couple have two children in their 30s will still probably have one or both of them at school by the time they are 50. So totally impractical. Never mind the older dad who marries someone much younger (often second or third marriage).

I think it will be over 65's and vulnerable and probably what we should have done in March!

Out of interest, there is a lot of talk about the vulnerable

How are people categorising that? In blunt terms , what death probability would you define for vulnerable ? Death rate of 1 in 100, one in a thousand?

@user1471500037

I think it will be over 65's and vulnerable and probably what we should have done in March!

That'll be DH then! If it was over 65s I can see him ignoring it completely

I think the government has unofficially floated a number of ideas in order to engage reaction, so whatever they do may be more acceptable.

Yep & I also think they leak the extremes so it softens the blow if that makes sense.

@midgebabe I'm going off the extremely clinically vulnerable conditions list
My condition is so rare I'm the only adult my consultant treats with it so death probability is a little harder to calculate. It does mean I can't fight bacteria/infection so bacterial pneumonia is not a great thing for me to get as a side effect of Covid

@midgebabe

Out of interest, there is a lot of talk about the vulnerable

How are people categorising that? In blunt terms , what death probability would you define for vulnerable ? Death rate of 1 in 100, one in a thousand?

Try this risk assessment. It gives you your COVID age. file:///Z:/COVID-19OccupationalRiskAssessmentGuidanceInteractive27.07.20%20(5).pdf

I was just wondering what people feel would be ok, not what the actual risk is...but thanks

Because if we lock up the vulnerable, we need a definition as a guideline ?

It had better not happen. I'm early 50s, single parent to 2 DC and can't afford to not be working. It's a load of bunkum anyway.

@midgebabe

Out of interest, there is a lot of talk about the vulnerable

How are people categorising that? In blunt terms , what death probability would you define for vulnerable ? Death rate of 1 in 100, one in a thousand?

Average death rate for the whole population is 1 in 100 if infected. No group within the population has a death rate as low as 1 in 1000 infections. So your question makes no sense.

It really doesn't matter whether over 50s want to be locked down or not. It is totally irrelevant what your personal circumstances or feelings are. People don't seem to get it. This is a pandemic. Measures will need to be taken to control and eliminate it. If that means locking down over 50s, that is what will happen. And you will just need to suck it up. If you think the country can't function without them for a few weeks, imagine how the country would function If 5% of them were taken out of action permanently, because of death, disability or changed family circumstances.

it is not going to happen, it never was
if you work you still work!

i have been working throughout and 99% of my colleagues are over 50,
we are not all of a sudden going to be told to stay at home,
we are practicing social distancing.

Surely we should lock up the carriers? The people spreading the infection? The ones not following the guidelines?

@midgebabe

Surely we should lock up the carriers? The people spreading the infection? The ones not following the guidelines?

Nice thought. But where? You would have to lock them up individually, well away from others, as they are more likely to be infected and have already demonstrated selfish and crass spreading behaviour

Then tag them. Or take over a hotel. I suspect when people have a good chance of losing liberty they will pay more attention to the guidelines.

May feel More tolerant after a cup of tea?

I just feel it's pretty naff to lock up the over 50s not the people actively spreading the virus.

It will never happen of course, because last week we were being told that over 40's would need to be taxed more...can't tax people if they're not earning.

I also think employers will be reluctant to take on BAME and overweight applicants for jobs too.

@mosquitofeast

It really doesn't matter whether over 50s want to be locked down or not. It is totally irrelevant what your personal circumstances or feelings are. People don't seem to get it. This is a pandemic. Measures will need to be taken to control and eliminate it. If that means locking down over 50s, that is what will happen. And you will just need to suck it up. If you think the country can't function without them for a few weeks, imagine how the country would function If 5% of them were taken out of action permanently, because of death, disability or changed family circumstances.

Well look how it affected the NHS - hospital wards were closing due to lack of staff (ill or isolating), it basically shut down for a few months and is very slowly coming out the other end with lots of staff still off sick or only able to work from home. There are lots of over 60s, BAME and obese staff in the NHS - it would collapse if the over 50s couldn't work.

@user1471500037

I think it will be over 65's and vulnerable and probably what we should have done in March!

There are millions of "vulnerable" who are workers and carers. The NHS, public transport, etc would collapse if they couldn't work.

There needs to be a serious media enquiry after this.

Clearly someone in the media is making up this bullshit and then throwing it out there saying “the government could do x and y,” or “over 50’s may be told to stay home,” when actually nothing of the sort is true.

As much as there needs to be a government enquiry after this, the press have a lot to answer for.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

I would expect anyone who actually needs to shield to be able to work from home or get support if they can't. Adding millions more to the list is crazy.

Nurses, bus/train drivers, etc can't work from home.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking "shielders" are so old/disabled that they don't have working/caring responsibilities. Many "shielders" have immune issues but otherwise perfectly healthy and lead normal lives including being key workers/carers. Take them out of society and you have a big problem.

As it isn't going to happen, I can't see the point in getting wound up about it.

I love how when the clinically extremely vulnerable were shielded we were constantly told it was a choice not a lock down, no one gave a shit how we would pay our bills, our mental health and amount of times I heard ‘just stay at home, it’s easy, let the rest of us have our lives’ I have no idea.

This thread is full of the words lockdown, lock up, what about our bills, how would we cope! The idea floated was for a risk assessment starting at 50 that took into account loads of things, weight, age, illness etc. It wasn’t a blanket shielding suggestion, and I do actually wonder if some of those people would actually have a higher risk than some caught up in the blanket shielding at the start.

Also, over 70s were not shielded unless they had underlying health issues, exactly the same as me at 39, but the press repeatedly ran articles calling the over 70s shielded without, clearly, doing their homework. One article I read about the over 70s being blanket shielded even linked to the gov site which very clearly said otherwise.