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?

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

Or they can’t follow them in schools for example.

You are naive if you think this is all about “people not following rules”

Oddly, despite the thinly veiled ageism of the "I know an 80 year old who..." anecdotes, the biggest rise in cases is currently 25-40 year olds.

How does that fit the "lock all the pesky people up who've had the temerity to still be alive?" agenda?

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.... the tragedy is the intensity of the loss felt by the people left behind, which probably is more for a 4 year old but can be very great for elderly people too. I sometimes wonder if people on here assume all elderly people are not loved ...

@SexTrainGlue

And the number of excess deaths is in line with the level at the same time last year

What's your cut off when asserting this? It's true that excess deaths have been low since early June, so the year on year comparison with those months would look 'in line'

But that's not the whole truth, is it? Because spring isn't 'the same time' of year, and that is when Covid-related excess deaths occurred.

It’s comparing October 2020 with October 2019. If that isn’t obvious, there’s no hope for you.

The excess deaths (as has been noted many times on the more intelligent data based threads) will be skewed this year because of a) a virtually non existent bog standard flu season b) a lockdown which albeit light compared to many countries still contributed to a sharp fall in deaths in the roads etc.

Your totally right. If young adults were getting sick, or children, people would be shitting themselves and taking all precautions necessary.

@TheSeedsOfADream

The excess deaths (as has been noted many times on the more intelligent data based threads) will be skewed this year because of a) a virtually non existent bog standard flu season b) a lockdown which albeit light compared to many countries still contributed to a sharp fall in deaths in the roads etc.

See above. Same amount of traffic on the roads and same point in the flu season.

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....

That’s interesting. I’d never thought of it like that but I think you’re probably right. Lots of older people would bitterly resent being asked to give up their enjoyment of their retirement to protect children. And as you say I don’t think there would be anything like the political impetus for the measures.

@NataliaOsipova

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....

Ah snowflake kids and their children these days. In my day we had polio and the next door neighbours kid almost died from scarlet fever. You didnt see our parents fussing and panicking. My dad was bombed in the blitz and people just kept calm and carried on. Problem is everyone soft now. Some kids will die but this level of fuss!!! I was in the supermarket the other day and some woman pulled her kids away from me when I coughed on them. Ridiculous. I didnt work my whole life paying taxes to etc etc etc Please note, I am not saying ALL or even most people in their 60s/70s would be like that. But some definately would (side-eyes step-parent)

On a broader level it probably isnt helpful to pitch generations against each other. Arseholery has no age limit.

@NataliaOsipova

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....

The rampant ageism on this thread is fucking horrible.

I am in my 50s, if the virus was killing any section of the population in the tens of thousands of course I would go along with any restrictions.

I agree, although probably not sorted, but I think we would have faired better.

I follow all the rules but this term have let my children stay out at their nans and took them to a few other things as I’m sick of them being punished! They keep missing out yet it’s ok for adults to go and do things.

@RoseAndRose

"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."

Yes but the children and teens have done it for others, the elderly have done it for themselves. I'm asking if the elderly would have stayed at home on their own, not gone shopping, or to see their friends or their family when they weren't at risk. They complained far more than I heared any teenagers complaining. The only thing I've seen teenager complaining about is the shitshow of their education and that older people aren't complying.
How many times have we had posts on here from new mums who've asked grandparents not to visit while they're ill but the grandparents have come anyway or hidden that they're ill? I've only been here a year and I've seen plenty. I personally do not believe that they would have complied in the same manner that children have.

I don't think so. The virus can't be stopped. More compliance in following the rules? I doubt it. Parents of children would but teenagers and young adults would just carry on. There's been cases of young people getting seriously ill and dying but the rules still aren't followed.
I think the unfortunate fact is lots of people young and old think the rules don't apply to them and that, won't change no matter who gets sick.
With regards to the vaccine they are working very hard on that. I really think they are doing their best and couldn't do anymore.

It’s comparing October 2020 with October 2019. If that isn’t obvious, there’s no hope for you

Thank you for your kind words.

I hope you paid attention to the rest of my post, and will also explain why you chose a comparator that excludes the months where the excess deaths occurred?

But @pinkearedcow I am in my thirties and have also followed all the rules. My neighbours 18 year old children have as well. The people I see breaking/bending the rules cut across all age ranges. I don't agree with the "people over 50 are all selfish" narrative. But the idea that if it was affecting younger people all those people over 50 would selflessly give up their lives to protect the young (as opposed to now when all younger people are selfishly continuing their lives because they don't care about grandma) is not moored in reality.

@echt

It’s human instinct to protect children

What about the elders?

Thankfully echt, the disgusting ageism seen on all these threads isn't, I find, quite so prevalent in real life. Or maybe I know nicer people. I don't believe for a second though that if my 4 year old died, poster A on MN would be more devastated than if their own mother did. Because that would make them weird. But it suits the ageist narrative, as does the same old posters churning out misinformation about the figures on thread after thread. Without realising that most people get their data from sources a bit more reliable than "my nan said"

No

Instead of calls to lock up the elderly and let everyone else go about their lives people who have called for kids to be locked up so everyone else could get on with things. We know from lockdown how hard it is for kids to quarantine

I also suspect that vaccine testing would be hindered - can you test new medicines on the very young?

The entire country came to a standstill to protect the less than 5% of people who are at high risk from COVID!!! The country came to a standstill to stop the NHS being over-run by the treatment of the 5% at extremely high risk and the 25% at high risk. The alternative would have been simply to say "we will not treat any Covid patients". I'm not sure the country would have found that palatable.

@Isaidsausages

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.... the tragedy is the intensity of the loss felt by the people left behind, which probably is more for a 4 year old but can be very great for elderly people too. I sometimes wonder if people on here assume all elderly people are not loved ...

But it’s expected that people will lose their grandparents/parents. The older they are and you are when you do lose them, of course the better.

A child dying is not expected. It’s not the natural lifecycle. No parent should ever go through losing a child. I couldn’t possibly think of anything worse that could ever happen. Nothing would ever come close for me. I’d be utterly utterly distraught.

I’d be shocked if parents would feel hugely dissimilar to me.

It’s not about who’s life is worth more or less. Of course elderly people are loved dearly but it’s about the life that has been lived or not lived and again that’s where the tragedy is.

@TheSeedsOfADream I'd say it's more down to that being the age of most of our workers and parents to school age children, probably more so parents as the new rise coincided well with schools going back and its pretty sensible to think that schools will have high transmission rates because the classrooms are small and there's a lot of kids so they cant really social distance.

When the trust my wife works at, makes her look after 6 confirmed cases and then in the same shift asks her to look after another 4 uninfected patients, these are elderly people she looks after aswell!
And the next day tells the staff, they are short staffed as usual , so if they develop symptoms they are not to be tested and to carry on!

Why should we bother listening!

Im young, i have underlying health conditions and i am done with the rules!

@yetanothernamitynamechange

But *@pinkearedcow* I am in my thirties and have also followed all the rules. My neighbours 18 year old children have as well. The people I see breaking/bending the rules cut across all age ranges. I don't agree with the "people over 50 are all selfish" narrative. But the idea that if it was affecting younger people all those people over 50 would selflessly give up their lives to protect the young (as opposed to now when all younger people are selfishly continuing their lives because they don't care about grandma) is not moored in reality.

Of course there will always be a certain percentage of the population who will ignore restrictions, that is not the point I am making.

The post I quoted made the rather sweeping generalisation that all the 50+ wouldn't give a toss if the virus was killing tens of thousands of children/young people and would just merrily go to the pub on holiday etc etc. It's offensive.

Incidentally... there IS a very deadly epidemic which disproportionately affects children, teenagers and young adults. Deaths in those age groups started to increase exponentially in the 70s until measures were taken to keep them low. That epidemic though is death from being hit by cars, and the measures taken did not focus on reducing the freedom of car drivers on the whole, but on reducing the freedom of children - the main reason children stopped being allowed to play in the streets anymore/walk to school on their own is because of the risk of car accidents and this is a trend which started in the 70s and continues. We have speed limits, but many people complain about those and see them as a risk to their freedom. They are also one of the most frequently broken laws.
So the idea that everyone of all ages would give up their freedom/follow the rules more if it was affecting children isn't born out by history.

@pinkearedcow I do agree with you there. I think these discussions tend to pit generations against each other (boomers v millenials v zoomers) as if they are entirely seprate groups, when in reality most of us have close family members/people we love from all age ranges.

It's ageist to say that it's natural for human beings (animals, mammals) to protect their young before themselves or older.

I can't think there's many grand parents that would say no let my 6 GC die so I can live.

Only on Mumsnet

I'd happily die so my children could live. You can report me for gross ageism if you wish. I have zero doubts that my DH and both sets of GPs would say the same. I don't know about us before then but I don't think they would place their lives as more important to save than the grandchildren.