If the young were dying we would have sorted this by now?

[Chaotic45]

To be clear I think I one of the few good things about Covid is that children and young people are mostly not affected.

However I feel that if they were, we would have had much more success with controlling the virus.

If more people had been genuinely concerned for themselves, and even worse for their children they would have followed the rules more closely.

The virus spreads via person to person contact- so by being in close proximity to an infected person and sharing of surfaces. So the roles should work, and they only don't because too many people don't follow them.

AIBU to think that if young people were dying more people would have reduced social contact and the infection rate would be more under control?

Argh, the title should read 'sorted' not 'sores' , I'm not sure how to ask mumsnet admin for help!

Yabu. I don’t think it would have changed people’s behaviour at all. If the percentage of deaths in general was higher than maybe younger people would have been more open to following the rules. However younger people often see themselves as invincible and have higher rates of risk taking.

I don't think so. If you look at the timeline for other diseases, all of the flu and things like Malaria, Elboa, HIV, then this has happened fast.

If children were more affected then of course we would comply more. Like it or not, children dying is more tragic and a threat to societies than 80 year olds. We have to accept death as part of life. Likewise the vaccine uptake would be better.

I don’t honestly how it would be “sorted” regardless of the age of the most vulnerable. We couldn’t all live in permanent lockdown even if children were worst affected.

The entire country came to a standstill to protect the less than 5% of people who are at high risk from COVID!!! Lots of people are still complying despite not being high risk or knowing anyone who is high risk

How do you feel about people continuing to work? Police, supermarket workers, carers, NHS staff, transport staff etc. By continuing to work, they are in close proximity to people. I understand what you are saying, but doubt it would have stopped, or substantially lowered transmission.

Or rather I don't know if people would voluntarily comply, Parents, teenagers (younger people) would take a more aggressive stance and that would mean compliance and a Police reaction to non compliance to stop public disorder situations.

I think they cant go any quicker tbh its a new fucking virus! We still have cancer and hiv! Anyway children are the future so i dont get all that ageist bitterness.

I think if children were more at risk then people would comply more. I know I would more so if it involves little ones.

Well yes - it’s a sad but true fact - if it was killing our kids of course people would be never leaving their houses until it was sorted out.
That doesn’t mean the vast majority of society are evil bastards though, just that people have to weigh things up and our brains work in certain ways. Of course no one wants granny to die at all but there’s a huge difference between your 80 year old relative potentially dying and your 5 year old child potentially dying.
And as usual with the whole debate about distancing etc there’s the whole middle ground of undetected cancer, suicide and poverty too.

I agree that people would be far more careful - I would be totally paranoid to leave the house. But I still don’t think it would have gone away completely.

I don’t think it would have been sorted, but I do think there would have been increased compliance. At the beginning of lockdown, anecdotally, it seemed that everyone was giving each other a wide berth on the streets. As soon as it was apparent that younger people were less likely to be affected there seemed to be lots of young people out in groups. I think this demographic would continue to mix (and in many ways I don’t blame them) whether they were in school or out of school.

I agree, during lockdown there were a couple of cases reported of children being in hospital and unfortunately dying, then in our village you didn’t see any families out walking for a while. The message from the start has always been it will be a mild illness for the majority of younger people, which thankfully it has been.

I do agree. I don't think it would be sorted but people would be taking more action. You can't go to Tesco without people wearing their masks under their nose. Drives me mad.

I feel like the old have been abandoned a little. In conversations I have had most people have been quick to say it's only the old and sick that are affected and they would die soon anyway.

In that case, would people have been happy with all the essential workers with children being sent home. Or at least one parent.
My DDs school had 45 children in tbe keyworker section- and that was only the double keyworker ply single parent KW families

I accept that many people can't wfh and social distancing is harder if that the case (I fall into this bracket).

I also accept that we couldn't completely stop all close contact.

However, the basis of exponential maths means that if more people had taken more care whenever they possibly could, transmission would have slowed to a much more manageable level.

If the young were predominantly affected, I would expect there to be more compliance and if not, martial law. But sorted / solved. No way. If we had a government the people trusted, we’d have more compliance and possibly lower rates of infection, or at least a slower spread.

I know we are very different geographically from Denmark and in fact have the advantage of being an island but at the same time a busy business hub. Rates in Denmark were very low and don’t anticipate a second wave. A lot of this is because the people are more compliant and trust their PM.

Probably, yes.

Of course compliance and philosophy would be different if the virus was taking out young people in significant numbers. That's just common sense. That would mean you risk wiping out the majority of the next workforce for the foreseeable future. And wiping out an entire future generation after them, or at best severely decimating it. How the hell would that work? You would start and venture into 'The Walking Dead territory with not enough people to support required infrastructure etc. Not only peoples personal responses but Govnt strategy would be completely different worldwide if that were the case but its not.

I think the first lockdown would have been much the same, compliance was pretty good at the time, and those that broke the rules probably would have regardless. Summer would have possibly been similar as well, things loosened up a lot, but the numbers were low enough to allow it, which would have been the same whoever was affected.

The main difference would be schools reopening. If children were badly affected no one would send them in, at least not with the current set up. There would either have to be money to make schools safe (allow 6 per room etc) or there would be long term home learning. It's known that home learning is not effective for a lit of children, so it would literally have to be a choice between risking their future or risking their lives.

Quite a lot of young people have died, including children, and others have long term problems from Covid-19. Not as much as old people but that is to be expected.

It should be sorted, at least better than it is, regardless of who dies as a result of this blooming virus.

I would say that young people have been disproportionately affected by Covid. Not from having the virus, but for every death there are many more young people and children affected by the fallout of the restrictions and what is to come- immediate MH, physical health, poverty, education, abuse and everything else. Their futures have been decimated, exam results lost, no doubt university students will do poorly compared to if they were receiving the education they are paying for.

The recession will have a devastating impact on the younger generations.

So while, yes of course it's sad when a loved one dies, and then dying alone is devastating for everyone involved, I don't think that 'the young' are unaffected or that there would be a great deal of difference if the virus was more of a danger to them.

You can't just eradicate a virus with a snap of the fingers and humans are naturally fairly selfish and less inclined to suffer for this long for some greater good ideas with no tangible benefit to them. Perhaps if the mortality rate was higher (like Ebola) or the proportion of asymptotic cases didnt (at least) appear to be far higher than symptomatic cases so more people were desperately ill, however the current status of the virus is obviously preferable even if the restrictions are wearing thin.

How would it be "sorted"?

Maybe people would follow the rules more closely and the numbers would be lower but the virus would still be there and once we started reopening the numbers would increase. There is no way to "sort" it more quickly.

No I don't think it could be sorted faster. If by sorted you mean a vaccine. It's a new virus so that would take as long as it is taking. (I don't think scientists are procrastinating because it's only people dying. The motivator is being the first ones.)

But if it were young people affected dsproportionally , the more people would absolutely be complying with the rules. Because young people would see it about saving themselves and want to protect themselves.

Though it's interesting you mentioned Ebola in your OP. That's one disease that's science isn't too pushed on. It's been a serious problem for decades but it just isn't the right place of the globe to warrant such extensive research.

Diseases are only "sorted" (or given a lot of budget or have more scientist involved, so it's done quicker) if they effect certain parts of the globe. (Wealthy parts.)

Ebola isn't, by it's very nature, the right sort of virus to have become globally pandemic. (Though there was a bit of fuss a while back, in the UK (and USA) about having Ebola in it, which brought the disease into the awareness of more of the general public.)