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?

I didn’t know either. What’s more, I bet most parents of young children don’t.

As far as I can tell, it is only recommended in adults in the case of pregnant women or as part of outbreak control.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/pertussis-the-green-book-chapter-24

It's a virus. It's never going to be possible to have it 'sorted'. It's not a wayward teenager.

Why would adults need a whooping cough vaccine? Most people my age or older (born from 1970ish onwards) were vaccinated or had the illness.

@TableFlowerss

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!!!!!

Nobody says that. It's not a race to the bottom.

Viruses can't be controlled. They have adapted and evolved to spread.

We can mitigate spread to a limited extent but unless everyone stays at home and the country shuts down, it will get passed around.

If it was rich privileged white men then yes oh wait yup nope I don't think anyone could have handled this properly because they knew about it and went on holiday instead we've had our pants down ever since

Me and OH had this conversation and said if it came out that it was affecting kids one of us would quit our job and stay at home full time with them. But to be honest we have followed majority of rules and been sensible anyway.

If you are referring to the young adults, probably but they are doing on a risk based approach and in some way I don’t blame them.

@Nottherealslimshady

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.

Exactly this!! Couldn’t have put it better myself

children are different because they are more under the control of their parents. But if the virus killed mostly teenagers or people in their early twenties then you would not have seen that age group being more carful/sheltering indoors for a long period of time. That is not an age group known for correctly assesing personal risk. If anything, I suspect the likelihood of infecting parents/grandparents will have checked there behaviour more as it is than if they themselves were the ones most at risk. Because their brains haven't finished developing, and they believe themselves invincible.

I don't understand the concept of ageism

You got that right.

they don’t consider the mental health of the majority as important at all mental health has been considered and policies attempted to protect people affected even if the results have been good enough. Incidentally, not everyone with mh problems have suffered as a result of lockdown, many introverts with mh have said that it has been a blessed relief. Though that isn't the point - the point is it has been considered, even if not perfectly dealt with. And the other really salient point here is that the current aim is not in fact to just protect the elderly and vulnerable, the aim has been to prevent mass numbers getting ill before a vaccine is produced as otherwise societal systems will not cope and any sort of systemic collapse will affect everyone - and also as pps have said, there is growing evidence that the young will be affected, numbers of young people being badly affected is increasing and we also know that young people may well be affected by long covid

In relation to getting it sorted, the scientists have been working extremely hard, they have been aware of the dangers and consequences of letting the virus rip through society unhindered and have been working to understand the virus properly and to produce vaccines.

even if the results have not* been good enough

I meant even if the results have not been good enough

I agree with you actually. I think if children in particular were badly affected then people would be more frightened. As it stands, people don’t seem to care anymore because they think that even if they get it, they won’t be that sick.

There needs to be an element of fear in order to get people to comply I think but not many are bothered anymore.

Oh and the scientists are working hard ‘to get this sorted’, the government just don’t listen to them.

@Noitjustwontdo

I agree with you actually. I think if children in particular were badly affected then people would be more frightened. As it stands, people don’t seem to care anymore because they think that even if they get it, they won’t be that sick.

There needs to be an element of fear in order to get people to comply I think but not many are bothered anymore.

I think this is true.

I agree but that is hardly surprising is it? Unpopular giew...but many things can tip an wlderly person overcthe edgaeeg:fractured femur whilst with a yound one it is not so serious.

I think the spread must have been slower because a large part of the population, parents and family members, will have a much tighter compliance, and I think schools will have remained closed.
But the virus would still not be sorted. It will take a while longer to get vaccines and treatments. And covid 19 is a hussler and will not vanish.

I don't think we would have. This country could do a lot more to protect children in other ways, but has decided not to. MPs have introduced child benefit caps and voted against free school meals during half term, while pensioners still get free TV licences, for example.

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.

No you didn’t, you said ‘if young people were dying more people would have reduced social contact and the infection rate would be more under control?*.

I think you sound thoroughly ungrateful. The lockdowns are happening to protect older people (which is good) and now you’re blaming the spread on young people.

@Nottherealslimshady

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.

This is an excellent explanation.

It would also affect the country differently. The fertility rate in the UK is already