...to think that Matt Hancock has a very strange idea of grandparents' day-to-day lives?

[Jourdain11]

His "don't kill granny" type comments. Does he really imagine that all grandparents are these poor, housebound people who do nothing but sit at home waiting for their children and grandchildren to waft past and pay the occasional visit?

My mother and stepfather, both in their early 60s, still work (part-time in my mum's case, full-time for my stepfather). They are both going to work, seeing friends, seeing family. They haven't seen me or my children since last New Year, incidentally, so if they catch Covid it won't be from their grandchildren! (They are in Paris.)

Does Matt Hancock honestly think that the contact circle of the average grandparent is limited to their children and grandchildren?

I get that it's to make people feel accountability and all that, but it's a little insulting!

Don't kill Granny!

It is catchier than:
Don't Endanger The Lives Of Your Close Relatives Who May Be In The 70+ Age Bracket.

I do find people go on endlessly about their grandchildren, so maybe that's where Matt Hancock got it from.

[quote SendHelp30]@HunterHearstHelmsley surely you know that your particular family is against the norm though?? I don’t know any grandmothers under 40!![/quote]
Maybe against the grain but only because people tend to have children later these days. I'll confess that I find it odd when people have their first child (through choice not circumstance or medical issues etc.) Well into their 30s. Yes my DM wasn't happy being a grandmother so young. My grandparents are in their early 80s, I'm mid 30s. I wouldn't consider being a grandparent at 45/50 particularly unusual.

And yes, it's also indirectly aiming to remind the elderly and vulnerable (represented by Granny) that they are vulnerable and could die.

My parents are in their late 70s. They live an active life and they do t really want to stop or restrict the,selves in any way. But the reality is that they are vulnerable even if not in the most vulnerable categories. If they catch it, they have a bigger chance of dying. This slogan reminds them of this too....and they need reminding, because who benefits from pretending everyone is at equal risk? No one. The gung-ho elderly who are going on cruises and meeting with extended groups of amity and friends are putting themselves at risk....and they need to recognise it in the same way, we all need to recognise their vulnerability. It's not discrimination based on age but a reality.

Granny represents the elderly and vulnerable. Most of us know elderly or vulnerable person and would hate to be instrumental in giving it to them, but if we are slack in social distancing and hand washing might do so.

But granny is someone related to you. There as nan is any much older woman you are close to.

Anyway, my family is slightly strange as the oldest closest relation tends to be a man.

It’s trying to get the attention of the 20 - 30 year olds who barely realise there’s a life outside of social media and have a horrible tendency to think they are the sun, moon and stars to simply everyone. Trying to appeal to their better nature and remind them to protect vulnerable people in their own family. Don’t take it so personally for goodness sake.

Ha! In my circle it's the 60+ year olds who are categorically not following the guidelines.
PIL were really off with us for not allowing them into the house, they accused us of being over protective. It hadn't occurred to them that as a household with three working out of the home, we weren't allowing them in to protect them and therefore the other vulnerable family members they visit.
My own parents seem to think they can only catch the virus from strangers and because their friends all have the same 'values' they're not a risk.
Meanwhile my young adult and teenager have cancelled plans and kept away from
friends with minimal fuss.

The fact that people take offence, struggle to understand what the message is, want to point out that their Granny is young and healthy and working......it all just shows what an uphill job the government has to get the message out. People need telling in lots of different ways and multiple times before the message get some brought nd penny drops. Lots of people still haven't grasped

But Granny could be anyone’s grandmother. You go out and catch COVID and then take it into another place where an elderly person, i.e. someone else’s granny, is and you pass it to them and they die.

Fact is if you catch COVID then you will almost certainly spread it to someone who is vulnerable, even by proxy.

Fact is that 20/30 year olds are complacent. They don’t think that they will be affected by it, and therefore it doesn’t occur to most of them that others will be.

According to a video I saw on BBC yesterday 300000 people who have had COVID have had symptoms for a month, that’s the majority of those testing positive. And of them, a large number are still suffering long-term effects.

The death rate has shot up from two yesterday to 32 today, that’s eleven times more than what it was yesterday....

It's a message to everyone....to all those who are gathering in houses in more than 2 households and who think it doesn't matter.....it's a reminder that those actions can spread Covid and when it spreads people die.

We need reminding. Yes, people in their 20s have been gathering but so have people of all ages. They're having an extended family event which has moved indorse because it's a bit colder, or they are meeting for a meal in a restaurant with 4 groups of friends. And then they visit a vulnerable person 5 days later.

We're pretty much expected to work till 67 now by this government but he doesnt want young people killing their grandparents. I guess it's okay if people of my age.get.killed by our workmates instead then

They could have tried telling just once, in a sensible way? Asking people to take responsibility for their actions, in exactly those words? It might have worked - but we will never know!

I think using the word "kill" is unfair. If grant meets 21 year old grandson, knowing perfectly well that 21 year old grandson lives in a flat share and goes out to work, that's her choice. If she subsequently gets Covid - which may or may not have been from him - that's a result of the risks she decided to take. If she then dies, that's extremely sad, but no "killing" is involved. Why should grandson have to carry that guilt?

But granny is someone related to you. There as nan is any much older woman you are close to.

I think that depends where you're from in DH's family his Grandma is Nan to the GC and Granny to the GGC and every other female known to the family regardless of age is Auntie.
In my family there was a host of Great and Great Great Aunts all known as Nan or Our Nan.

I think we can all agree that Matt Hancock is an absolute tit.

YANBU. I posted the other day about how my mother (74) is not knitting and baking scones she is up the pubs and rock bars and on Tinder dates. I think we're more at risk from her!

Oh yes.....if your Granny is only 45 or if you don't have a Granny at all and just a Grandad, then the message isn't for you. For you, it's fine to have gatherings in your house of 9 people or meet for an extended family lunch, or to gather some friends who are lonely and need support in a group of 12......because clearly your actions cannot be instrumental in giving Covid to anyone else.

The message would be much easier to grasp, if there was some logic behind the rules. I can't keep track of what the rules are, what with the 4 nations and local lockdowns on the news every day!

Why does the government want office workers to go back to work, to save sandwich shops, as if lives don't actually matter! Why can we go to a pub or restaurant, full of strangers more densely packed for hours, than if we invited our neighbours for a party in our house?

Sticking to a simple 2m social distancing rule, except for necessary personal care like dentists, hairdressers, etc would be much more logical!

'Kill' is a strong and emotive word. It makes people realise that actually they do have to take responsibility for their actions. If they don't socially distance and wash their hands or gather with more people than they should, then they DO put their elderly relatives or other vulnerable people at risk. Kill is a stark word becaue the truth is stark and we can't sugar-coat the risks or our own role and responsibility. The fact people want to argue that people shouldn't feel guilt or feel responsibility shows just how far the message still has to travel before people grasp that our own individual actions do have repercussions for both strangers but also people we love and that unless we all choose to do the right thing, people are at risk. We can only become responsible for ourselves and in doing that protect our own loved ones and if everyone chooses to do that, the vulnerable won't be exposed to the illness from us or from others. But the Grannies and vulnerable have to buy-in too. It's not just the young who are being reckless but people of all ages, who Ia gree seem to think that if they hang out with peoole they know who are nice people, somehow they will be protected from it.

I'm a granny to one and also still have primary aged DC. I'm 44. He's living in an era where grandparents were all 60+ I think! Is your grandchild in the 20 to 29 age group, you know the group he was addressing? If your grandchild is 20 plus and you are 44 you have more to worry about than Matt Hancock.

@WombatChocolate

'Kill' is a strong and emotive word. It makes people realise that actually they do have to take responsibility for their actions. If they don't socially distance and wash their hands or gather with more people than they should, then they DO put their elderly relatives or other vulnerable people at risk. Kill is a stark word becaue the truth is stark and we can't sugar-coat the risks or our own role and responsibility. The fact people want to argue that people shouldn't feel guilt or feel responsibility shows just how far the message still has to travel before people grasp that our own individual actions do have repercussions for both strangers but also people we love and that unless we all choose to do the right thing, people are at risk. We can only become responsible for ourselves and in doing that protect our own loved ones and if everyone chooses to do that, the vulnerable won't be exposed to the illness from us or from others. But the Grannies and vulnerable have to buy-in too. It's not just the young who are being reckless but people of all ages, who Ia gree seem to think that if they hang out with peoole they know who are nice people, somehow they will be protected from it.

But why isn't it Grandad? Granny is much less likely to die. Grandads not matter as much?

Matt Wanksock can just fuck off.

ok he is not talking to all grandparents, but if a young person is in the 20 to 29 age group their grandparents will be in the older bracket and therefore more vulnerable. probably over 70
if not, then fair enough, it is just a reminder to those in their twenties to be aware.

oh and granddads too

YANBU and it's important the govt realise older people have many more exposures than just through family.

I think though that he has borrowed this phrase...earlier in the year there was a thread asking what the 'slogan' was in different countries, and there was one where 'don't kill granny' was basically it.

It's the opposite for me - my parents are in their 70s and in pubs/restaurants and avoiding me because I'm shielding

by your reckoning, my granny died a very long time ago, so i should care less?

My dad is 53 and works pretty much full time (SE) coming into contact with all manner of people. All day, every day.
Catching it from DD is probably the least likely of all possibilities.
It's certainly not something he's worried about.

Matt Hancock, like most Torys, seems to be stuck in the 1950s with a lot of what he says. I saw the interview with Kay Burley regarding Tony Abbott. MHs answer didn't shock me, the openness of it did.

Vile human.