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?

It wouldn't have changed things, I have more problems with older generations. Refusing to keep to the 2m distance, ignoring lockdowns and they are the most at risk! If it just affected the young I can't imagine their behaviour would change.

I dont know actually. We've put tons of resources into this. We cant make a vaccine any faster.
People who work wouldn't be able to isolate from their children so either no one goes to work or all the kids die. But we can isolate from our parents.

But, and at risk of being "ageist", maybe young people would be more able to adapt to change and would understand the risks better so would protect themselves better than the elderly? I know the elderly people I know were straight back into their normal routine as soon as the shops, cafes and bingo were open again. Whereas parents would have been more careful with their young children and teenagers would have sat at home on their games. I think most teens have handled the whole thing really well especially considering the risk to them is very small. They've given up SO much, we really should give them some credit.

My whole family would be devastated if we lost one of our children to Covid (or anything). It would change our lives forever and imprint grief on our lives forever too.

If my elderly parent died (who has aged 10 years in lockdown because of the social isolation) not so much. (They would be fine with reading this post too and agree with it).

This is partly a reflection of my relationships/love within my family, but mostly because children are the future, and represent hope to me. I hopefully have my whole lifetime with my children. My parents had this.

I am pro-abortion rights and anti-legalised euthanasia so I wouldn't be too quick to put me in 'just another ageist' box.

Would the older generations have given up as much of their freedom as the kids and teenagers have if it was the other way around?

@Nottherealslimshady

Would the older generations have given up as much of their freedom as the kids and teenagers have if it was the other way around?

??

They have given up pretty much the same. Though obviously - like all other adults - not school, unless they are teachers.

The 88 year old gentlemen who has an underlying health condition.
Who has loved, worked, married, had children, travelled and so on

Versus the...

4 year old who has... what? Played and gone to nursery.

No brainier why the motivation to overcome would be at any and all cost

Why the fuck is it 'versus' ?

Low transmission rates protect everyone

@goisey

My whole family would be devastated if we lost one of our children to Covid (or anything). It would change our lives forever and imprint grief on our lives forever too.

If my elderly parent died (who has aged 10 years in lockdown because of the social isolation) not so much. (They would be fine with reading this post too and agree with it).

This is partly a reflection of my relationships/love within my family, but mostly because children are the future, and represent hope to me. I hopefully have my whole lifetime with my children. My parents had this.

I am pro-abortion rights and anti-legalised euthanasia so I wouldn't be too quick to put me in 'just another ageist' box.

Great post so very true. There is no comparison to the loss of a child or the loss of an 85 year old for the vast vast majority of people.

As you rightly say, the grief would never end because you’d be constantly consumed with the loss of the life that child never got to live. It’s something no one could get over.

No it is a virus. Never in the history of the world have we had such a response to a virus that effects the very old and the very sick. We now know this is not the Spanish flu. The majority have little or no symptoms. The death risk for the under 70’s is 0.05% and possibly lower. Third world countries live with a lot worse ever single day.

Agree OP.

I think martial law too.
It would be so different :(

@Jroseforever

The 88 year old gentlemen who has an underlying health condition. Who has loved, worked, married, had children, travelled and so on

Versus the...

4 year old who has... what? Played and gone to nursery.

No brainier why the motivation to overcome would be at any and all cost

Exactly. The scenarios are very very different.

No brainier why the motivation to overcome would be at any and all cost

Try plain English, why don't you? Can't tell whether you think the elder or the youngster should be kicked to the kerb, Covid-wise.

Do clarify.

I don’t really understand your point. You think that if young people were more affected, rates of compliance with the lockdown measures would have been higher, and the virus would have gone away completely as a result?

I don’t disagree that people probably would have complied more willingly with the lockdown measures if it affected the young more, but that doesn’t mean the virus would have packed its bags and gone away and everything would be ‘sorted’ - that’s a massive oversimplification.

Great post so very true. There is no comparison to the loss of a child or the loss of an 85 year old for the vast vast majority of people

But they did compare, they said the child was more valued than the elder.

@echt

No brainier why the motivation to overcome would be at any and all cost

Try plain English, why don't you? Can't tell whether you think the elder or the youngster should be kicked to the kerb, Covid-wise.

Do clarify.

She’s saying that if a child passed away it would be absolutely tragic as they’ve not had the chance to live. They’ve not had the chance to make it to adulthood, never mind lived an adult life, get married, have their own kids etc...

The younger someone is when they die the more tragic it is, because they never had an opportunity to live.

Should the pp that said her life would be unbearable if she lost her child, not be allowed to say that she wouldn’t feel the same if her 80+ year old mother passed away?

It’s human instinct to protect children.

I completely disagree! Funnily enough, I was having this conversation with DH yesterday. Imagine a situation where there was a virus that was only really dangerous for young children. Would you really see people in their 50s/60s/70s deciding not to go to the pub, garden centre, restaurants, foreign holidays? Or would their attitude be “it’s up to the parents to take responsibility for their own kids”/“kids have far too much these days, no harm in them staying at home and playing quietly”? I think you’d have seen a lot less compliance....and, cynically, a lot less pressure from the governments as these are the people who vote....

@echt

Great post so very true. There is no comparison to the loss of a child or the loss of an 85 year old for the vast vast majority of people

But they did compare, they said the child was more valued than the elder.

They said that the loss of a child is tragic. The loss of an 85 year not so.

One has lived one has not had that opportunity. It’s vastly different and most people would understand this view point.

They said that the loss of a child is tragic. The loss of an 85 year not so. One has lived one has not had that opportunity. It’s vastly different and most people would understand this view point

1. My point was that they said there was no comparison.

There is. They valued the child above the elder. They should have said so and not been so mealy-mouthed about it.

It’s human instinct to protect children

What about the elders?

@NuttyMother500 I'm sorry you're feeling unwell. Why don't you start a separate thread and you'll get lots of responses. I think your post has been lost in amongst the bun fight on this thread

No I do not think the virus would be “sorted” by now if the young were the most vulnerable to dying from it.
Yes, we might have higher compliance and many more shielding, but that’s not “sorted” in my opinion. That is avoidance.
To me sorted means the virus is eliminated either through epidemic controls or a vaccine so that life is back to normal. That’s sorted.

@echt

It’s human instinct to protect children

What about the elders?

Elders have had a life. Children haven’t.... so the tragedy in the the loss of a (say) 4 year old passing away, is that they never had the opportunity to live in the first place. The elderly person did....

Regarding OP asking if people would behave differently had it affected the young then yes I think they would.

I'm sorry, I just realised that I put my post in the wrong place 🙈 Rooky mistake but I've put it where it should have gone now. Xx

haven't read whole thread, so someone may have already pointed this out - we don't know if the young are being affected, even with minor symptoms there may be hidden organ damage. sorry to be a gloom mongerer though.

I didn't say that in this scenario the young were affected as opposed to older people. I meant a scenario where younger and older people were equally affected.