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

@Topseyt indeed

Whilst it is unworkable really there’s no point being outraged and acting like the Government are trying to curtail for freedom for no reason....the last figures I saw (about 6 weeks ago now) made uncomfortable reading on the amount of deaths in the 50-60 bracket, especially for men, it was higher than the 80 plus bracket for both me and women at that time (this was UK only data). I can remember being shocked. It was from the Times I think so a reputable news source.

Now whilst it probably won’t happen it’s been mooted because of the 5/6 months worth of data we have now which we didn’t have at the beginning.

I'm 55 and very fit, but they could lock me up for a year if that meant my DC could lead a normal life and go back to school.

Not as simple as that unfortunately..

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.

That's why I said I would expect anyone who needs (and chooses) to shield to get help if they can't work from home and not to add any more to the shielding list

Lovely headline ‘over 50s face stay at home order.’ Cause panic and people saying I won’t do it. When you actually look into it, it wouldn’t be a blanket lockdown based on age alone. The article discusses individualised risk analysis and those higher risk advised to stay home. Age is the biggest factor so being over 50 would raise your risk score but wouldn’t automatically put you in the category of stay at home. It does make a nice headline though.
It would be nice if the risk stratification tool that would enable this was actually available to clinicians rather than being pushed back again and again. I know it needs fine tuning but it would be helpful just as a starting point.

I fundamentally disagree with the principle of locking inconvienet people up in anything but the most extreme of circs, so when they had lost control in March, ok, but now we know better, than no.

To actually protect people basically means them and their family / social bubble withdrawing from all other human contact and civilisation for possibly a year or more.

It has to involve the social bubble because I am not sure how well humans can live for a long time without true social and physical contact.

We are locking up those who have done no wrong because others can't be arsed to practise some simple, far far less restrictive behaviour ?