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?

YANBU but you won’t get many admitting it because that would make them ageist.

@Bouncycastle12

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.

Because people would have been more considerate, socially distanced properly and worn masks.

Because young lives are considered to be more important than those of older people.

OP YANBU

Where I am compliance seems high. I don't think compliance is the / the only issue - we're dealing with a virus; it's very good at spreading given the right conditions and some of the things we're allowed or encouraged to do facilitate that spread, and now that the weather has turned ventilation becomes a huge issue. Short of a Wuhan style "weld the apartment buildings closed" approach I'm not sure what changes I'd suggest.

@DianaT1969

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.

Worked in Melbourne and New Zealand

Yes, you’re right op.

It is a daily surprise to me that Nobody seems to have realised the whole reason we need police-Enforced rules is because the current strategy is so unpopular with a majority of people.

If children were the group most at risk, we wouldn’t have needed the whole raft of legal measures that we currently have, as there would have been widespread compliance.

Quite a lot of young people have died, including children
6 children under 14 and 600 under 45 (a huge bracket)
Out of 60 million people and a normal annual death rate of 600,000 it's really not that much.
Interesting how they're all multiples of 6!

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

Yes, you’re right op.

It is a daily surprise to me that Nobody seems to have realised the whole reason we need police-Enforced rules is because the current strategy is so unpopular with a majority of people.

If children were the group most at risk, we wouldn’t have needed the whole raft of legal measures that we currently have, as there would have been widespread compliance.

Can you imagine the threads on here if ‘the rest of us’ had insisted on continuing to fly around the world on holiday?

I think you are right to some extent, but the rules would be much more authoritarian. As parents we must work to earn money - would we sacrifice or risk the homes we live in for our over 80's? Apparently not. Would we for our children? Hell yes.

i am not sure
you would still get age groups going out and about and perhaps even saying, keep the vulnerable at home

If my children were seriously at risk - then I wouldn’t be bloody leaving the house with them!!!

They’re not. So we are essentially leading as normal life as possible (school, sports camp over half term, play dates, days out, coffee shops, shopping etc)

My children at risk. We hibernate and I do everything in my power to protect them.

Yes, I think that is partly true, not sure we could be going any quicker with a vaccine though.

I don't think that's the case at all. People sat at home for months.
The fact is that we are a densely populated island. Unsurprisingly the places with highest density have the most cases.
There just isn't a simple answer
Most people are complying. Most young people and parents are complying. That's the best you could ask for. Unless martial law is the next option

No. Look at Polio - little change to way of life, other than annual pool closures.

Look at whooping cough - tell me what limitations the elderly put on their movements and family contact to ensure that children dont catch this when there an outbreak? Or Herpes (no kissing when symptomatic)? Or chicken pox (shingles)?

There are so many diseases which kill and permanently maim children every year for which zero lifestyle changes are made by older people - indeed you will see anguished threads on here about young mothers struggling to keep the infected from wilfully infecting their babies (e.g kissing newborn with active cold sores).

What the young have endured for covid is absoutely not repeated for illnesses which similarly affect children.

@Ponoka7

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.

This this this and this more

@YouCantBeSadHoldingACupcake

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

I'm sure you don't mean it to sound that way, but there is a whiff of scapegoating coming from your post. Also, this isn't actually why we are locking down.

OP, COVID wouldn't be "sorted" by now, it can't be "sorted" without better treatments and a vaccine, but as others have said, there would be a lot more compliance with restrictions and less "othering" of people at high risk (see above quoted post).

I don't see that we'd have sorted it: we would still be led by incompetents who blundered the initial response and did nothing much until it was too late.

@Jroseforever

If my children were seriously at risk - then I wouldn’t be bloody leaving the house with them!!!

They’re not. So we are essentially leading as normal life as possible (school, sports camp over half term, play dates, days out, coffee shops, shopping etc)

My children at risk. We hibernate and I do everything in my power to protect them.

This post from Jroseforever sort of proves the OPs point.

I agree. I think people don't think it will happen to them or they no longer care or the whole thing with Dominic Cummings just gave people a 'fuck it' attitude or a combination of these and other factors.

Until there is a series of public information films showing naked people lying face down with an endotracheal tube and their eyes taped shut and Xrays showing completely consolidated lung fields, nothing much will change.

How we've gone from staying in and clapping for the NHS and having a sort of cohesive feeling to this total free for all astonishes me.

I agree with you OP but I can't see how it can be 'sorted'. The will of the people to do the right thing has vanished from where I'm standing.

It's a virus which is very good at spreading no matter what people do.

Stopping the spread is not a zero sum game. Schools opening for example have inevitably increased numbers, but the impact of DCs continuing not to receive education and socialisation, plus DPs not being able to work is deemed to outweigh the cost in spread.

Totally agree, and have said this from early on - the worst thing the Gov did was say 'it's not affecting the young' - you only have to see photos of mass gatherings etc to see the majority (obvs not all) are young. And the universities wouldn't have opened but done distance learning etc. But unfortunately what's done is done. And to the PP who said "The entire country came to a standstill to protect the less than 5% of people who are at high risk from COVID" what, so sod anyone over 50 or anyone who has underlying health issues, they can catch it and die, as long as I can still go to the pub.

I think you're mixing up matters here and I think you also think people as a whole hold children in much higher regard than they actually do.
In terms of social distancing, at the end of the day some people are selfish/don't believe in it, so aren't going to change their behaviour for anyone regardless of age. Also the science can only move so fast and that's our way out of this.

How can you "sort" a virus?

Nature needs to take its course. All this fucking up with lockdowns etc is doing bugger all.

And it's not just about going to the bloody pub - that's a lazy example that gets trotted out to show how selfish people are for wanting a semblance of their life back.

I've been wfh since March. It's ok but hours are increasing and as we go through the tough bits we don't have the sense of camaraderie that you get when in the same office. It has been tough. Yesterday someone posted a picture of a Diwali celebration we had last year - it was an incredible day and it made me want to cry looking at it. However if I need to wfh forever to ensure that my DS gets an education and exercise. Would I do it forever to protect my octogenarian DPs ? Sorry but probably not.

I agree with you that compliance levels would be higher than they currently are OP. But the nature of this virus (highly infectious, a long incubation period, a high proportion of asymptomatic cases), plus the high level of international mobility, makes it incredibly difficult to eliminate it entirely worldwide. (Unless we get an effective vaccine - and lots of people are working hard on that.)

So no, I don't believe it would be "sorted".

I'm not sure if it would be over/sorted. I do agree people would take it far more serious if it infected young people with the risk of dying.

In India this is a disease of the young and so mild symptoms are more common. As a result everybody is back at work and behaving as much as possible like they normally would - local governments and businesses are the ones stepping in to make sure vulnerable people are protected by cancelling / restricting certain types of events.