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?

@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?

Whens the last time the older generation made any effort whatsoever to stop transmission during one of the too regular whopping cough outbreaks? As opposed to complaining that they won't be vaccinated as it wont affect them (even with infant grandchildren around)? 🤔

That's your answer. Stone cold.

I think if we leave aside the repulsive "old people have had their life" thing, (thankfully HQ delete these pdq) it's obvious that any of us would take any precaution necessary to save our own children.
That's a non argument surely?
But posters on here like to use it as the carrot to draw in the eugenicists. And they come running.

@NiceGerbil

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.

I don't think you understand what ageist means. Your post isn't ageist.

Also, its natural to care about ones own children more than anything else (we are biologically primed for that). But if people cared more about children they didnt know/had no connection to we wouldnt be the second largest worldwide exporter of arms/weapons. We also would have erradicated child poverty within the UK and we wouldnt have children dying in refugee camps or washing up on foreign beaches either.

Sadly very true.

Whens the last time the older generation made any effort whatsoever to stop transmission during one of the too regular whopping cough outbreaks? As opposed to complaining that they won't be vaccinated as it wont affect them (even with infant grandchildren around

Hang on, is there a whooping cough vaccination programme for adults in the UK apart from in pregnancy? Genuine question.

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

That is not ageist.

No, it wouldn't have been sorted. There still would be no vaccine, and people still aren't going to huddle inside for unknown amounts of time.

I think we'd see schools managed differently for sure, which would be totally appropriate.

I do think that fact that it largely kills those who are already at risk of dying sooner is something taken into account in management. It always is, that's not different than any other health management, not should it be.

@TheKeatingFive

The one unforgiving thing IMO about the government’s management has been the failure to lockdown right at the beginning of March.

I’m not even sure that’s true though. The Czech Republic locked down early and hard, thought they’d ‘beaten’ it and look at them now - on the brink of collapse - losing compliance from people who’ve already been locked down for months.

No one wanted to start lockdowns too early, because it's known that people only comply for so long. Places that started too early were disadvantaged later.

It was very much a judgement call and places affected later seemed more likely to get it right. Which makes sense really.

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?

No, I think there would have been significantly more deaths and a partial collapse.

@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 ...

It has nothing to do with not loving them.

But do people really imagine that they are somehow going to avoid losing a 80 year old within the near future? They will die, soon, probably of an respiratory infection or heart attack or stroke. So it's really just facing the scenario you already knew you were going to face.

Not so with a child. Now, in the west, people do not expect to be at their small child's funeral.

@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 ...

It has nothing to do with not loving them.

Do you really imagine that they are somehow going to avoid losing a 80 year old within the near future? They will die, soon, probably of an respiratory infection or heart attack or stroke. So it's really just facing the scenario you already knew you were going to face.

Not so with a child. Now, in the west, people do not expect to be at their small child's funeral.

What irks me regarding all the ‘this is so ageist etc etc’ posters, is that they only focus on covid and the physical symptoms, which are far worse in the elderly.

In recent years they had been a push for poor mental health to be recognised as equally as important as poor physical health. There isn’t so much a stigma attached to saying you feel depressed etc these days and millions of people suffer from mental health problems at some point.

Circumstances like loosing a job, not being able to provide for your family, potentially losing your home are all massive triggers for people to go on a downward spiral.

So I find it ironic they want everyone to do everything to protect those that have physical symptoms of covid (that happens to be the elderly) but they don’t consider the mental health of the majority as important at all.

They complain about how people are selfish and the like yet they’re more than happy to throw the younger ones under the bus!!!!!

covid doesn’t just affect people physically-if affects many many more mentally

If young people were dying, young people would have observed social distancing and wearing of face coverings 100% or near enough.

Every year globally millions of children die of preventable diseases. I can assure you humanity will continue to make mistakes, weigh up priorities wrong as it has in poorer countries.

I don't understand the concept of ageism. Sexism and racism is discrimination between two perfectly equal people who happen to have different sexual organs or a different skin colour. But otherwise are the same, same job experience, same qualities just one insignificant difference. Choosing to save a white life over a black life has no logical basis whatsoever, it would be born purely through discrimination.
But the choice to save the life of a 5 year old over an 85 year old is perfectly logical and sensible, they're completely different, they could be the same colour and sex, it would make no difference, the difference alone would be that one is at the start of their life, and the other at the end. Why would you choose to preserve a life that's nearing its end over one that's just beginning? I cannot for the life of me understand how its offensive.

Surely one of the issues is a) it doesn't affect the younger generation as much as the 60+
b) in 10-15 years time out children will be still paying for this mess ...

Yes, adults can get a pertussis vaccine. But there shouldn't need to be a programme, right? After all, they should be willing to spend their own money in older not to be granny killers kiddy killers, right? As the young are being expected to do, in losing jobs and savings for lockdown, right?

But that doesnt happen. The older gen don't put themselves out to keep children safe from becoming very ill or even dying from childhood illness - let alone endure lockdown. That's the answer, "no the elderly wouldn't - and don't - put themselves out for random kids"

PicsInRed I'm over 50 so I guess that makes me one of the "kiddy killers". I had no idea that adults should get the whooping cough vaccine in order to protect children. How on earth would I be expected to know that in the absence of some sort of public awareness campaign?