Omg. The next step in the strategy. And if we all stick together it may work

[Bool]

Next step in UK strategy. Lock down all the over 70s (and other immunocompromised - kids / adults) for 4 months. Lock them down. Then make it illegal to close schools. That means we gain immunity to the virus as a population and keeps the beds open for the unusual cases that are not foreseen.

Closing the schools will kill off the elderly far quicker. I’m struggling to understand what it is posters want? They don’t want to isolate the elderly as they will get lonely and die but they want to to close schools which then means people will use them for childcare which will almost certainly result in them being infected. A complete lockdown? Go back to point one.
As I said, I’m struggling to understand the logic.

From the link to Robert Peston's piece on this, how do people feel about this bit "What keeps ministers and officials awake at night is the fear that if the epidemic becomes too great they would have to make appalling decisions, such as that the NHS would stop treating people over a certain age, such as 65."

Do they mean they will stop treating the over 65's for this virus or do they stop treating us for anything?

Alice0213235

Well said

As has been pointed out, numerous times, it isn't just about mum not being bored. Many elderly people need care - be it living in or visits from family, or carers. These people may well have children who are being "herded" (and there is massive controversy over the effectiveness of that strategy in itself). So in effect, many, many elderly simply won't be able to follow the advice.

@SnoozyLou

Again, I’m talking about the older people that are going out socially, going for coffee, to the gym, social things. Same with parents of the elderly saying they’ll be bored etc...

Again I’m not talking about people that NEED care etc that are unable to do things in their own!

Can we PLEASE look at this at a population level.

Jesus.
A woman said this in the hairdressers yesterday. I think she forgot that she was only a few years off 70 herself. Stupid fool was a bit shocked when this was pointed out. 'Oh, no, I don't mean me...'

If the virus kills 1%. That is 400k deaths. And we are still carrying on normal life. Am I missing something?!

If you take the elderly and those with health conditions out of circulation as much as possible then it reduces the death rate. That's the goal with this particular element - the death rate is massively higher in those groups.

@StatisticallyChallenged this could only work if the rest of the world too this stance. They aren't.

Therefore in order to keep other countries, who have taken this stance, virus free they would not be able to allow those from the UK into their country as it will cause reinfection.

So this herd immunity approach that the government now deny is their approach will not work without it being a collective, world wide approach.

We are on our own on this one, and need to make a U turn now.

Why hasn’t it spread in poorer countries more, places like Tunisia and Egypt etc, and countries where it’s the norm to eat food with your hands. I’m sure in many of these poor countries that they don’t all have access to antibacterial cleaners and soaps etc.

1forsorrow my reading would be everything, or at least everything which would require significant resources e.g hospitalisation.

buttonmoonb4tea that assumed that those countries can erradicate it. It's far from a certainty.

I think it may well be spreading to other poorer countries but they are not testing for it. Even in Iran I don't think we have been told the full numbers - in that awful Evin prison apparently it has temporarily freed 54,000 prisoners and the virus may be rife for those left - that poor Iranian journalist married to a British man locked up there apparently has it in the hospital wing - prisoners were fighting to me moved to that wing although of course the care there is almost nothing.

meant assumes, not assumed. The assumption that other countries won't have covid and we will is a huge one.

StatisticallyChallenged, I hope Boris isn't expecting older people to vote for him again if he implements this (not that I voted for him anyway.) I started work fulltime at 15, got caught by both pension changes so I'm 66 and still working and paying my taxes but I can't have any NHS treatments? I think we might see some geriatric terrorists out on the streets.

Why hasn’t it spread in poorer countries more, places like Tunisia and Egypt etc, and countries where it’s the norm to eat food with your hands. I’m sure in many of these poor countries that they don’t all have access to antibacterial cleaners and soaps etc.
It will have done. They just don’t have the testing and treatment facilities, or for political reasons they don’t report them.

I didn't vote for him either!

People are definitely focusing on the wrong things.

People saying how their parents won't self isolate because they'll be bored? Are we actually serious here?

I'm for everyone making their own decisions, but ultimately, if you're 70+ and choose to avoid advice, I don't think you should be allowed a bed if you become ill.

For once, people need to start taking responsibility for themselves. For far too long we've had too many people rowing themselves up shit creek then when it all goes wrong, they want all the medical attention in the world. It really can't happen anymore, that utterly selfish attitude where people expect others to bail them out due to their own stubborness/laziness. Often continually, too.

Vulnerable people, no matter what group you're in, need to focus on protecting themselves. And the rest of us need to stop putting others at unnecessary risk.

Wash your hands. Stay away from people if you can. Stop coming out to shops to buy all the bloody food and basics leaving others with nothing. Start making do with what you have. Stop leaving the house for trivial, daft reasons. Keep your workspace tidy and frequently cleaned. Cancel your holidays.

Unfortunately, I have no hope this would ever happen, though. Brexit has given far too many people an arrogance about them that nothing would fix. Too, too many people are utterly selfish bastards. And often dirty, unhygienic ones at that.

But by the luck of the draw, they won't be the ones to die.

If this goes the way it is going in other countries then yes there will be mental health and trauma issues to address on the other side, but the whole point is this is something none of us have seen before. This is a totally different situation, it's a game changer, and most of this is about the fear and struggle to adapt to normality being so changed.

Being bored and lonely comes second to a significant risk of dying from the virus or a significant risk of blocking a bed/resources at what is going to be a ridiculously over stretched time for the nhs because you know you're likely to get the version of the virus with full complications, or worst case scenario, driving the nhs to the point that awful decisions have to be made about who can and cannot have treatment.

There's responsibility on both sides of this: society to protect it's more vulnerable and the more vulnerable not selfishly doing things more likely to put the rest of society into harder situations than necessary. And I say that as one of the ones who'll have to lock down.

Ihope Boris isn't expecting older people to vote for him again if he implements this
They are trying to save your life!

It might behave differently in hotter, sunnier places too. We get a drop off in colds over the summer for the same reason, even though they do not vanish completely

It’s so odd that people are wanting total lockdown for everyone and the government isn’t doing enough - but when the proposal is for a partial lockdown of the most vulnerable in society then there are cries of ‘how will we make that work’. I don’t get it.

I work in a school.
I have a child who goes to school.
My husband works in a school.
We have an 89 year old relative who lives with us.

How should we make this work?

Why this assumption that vulnerable people do not work? My husband falls into three at risk categories. His organisation would face huge difficulties if his expertise was not available for 4 months. Thankfully, he is able to conduct much of the day to day business from home, is already doing so, but there are limits. There will be many other vulnerable but strategically vital workers who simply cannot carry out their work at home.
I’m fit and healthy, perfectly prepared to isolate with him to protect him/others.
The insurmountable problem are the children. Out and about at College/university, what prevents them bringing the virus home and completely negating the effects of our isolation? We can keep our distance but with the best will in the world, I can’t disinfect every hard surface in spaces we will be forced to share (albeit staggered), all day, every day.
School, Colleges and universities must eventually close. Not doing so will make a nonsense of any other policies that went before.

but the point was not treating eldey who go out. So do we interview people and assess whether they had a good reason? Sorry, found out your Mom wasn't going out for basic supplies but cos she was bored ask were removing the ventilator.
What about younger people who get it by going out and enjoying themselves? Surely they bring it on themselves too

@SleepingStandingUp

I have no idea how they can police it. That’s not my concern. My concern is for the elderly that are capable of going shopping etc and do so on a busy Sat afternoon. Why do that? If the answer is ‘that’s the only day Anne can take Jean shopping....’ well Jean should stay at home for her own safety.

I’ve got family members who are over 70 and are parading around going to gym etc and have said they would refuse to stay in. That’s their choice but again, when it comes to the crunch where doctors need to decide who gets the ventilator, it won’t be the 80 year old.

You’re asking how can they police it and distinguish between who had been following guidelines and staying in and who had been going out? There will be no way to tell of course as you say but once the elderly person is infected it will be irrelevant whether they went out or not, the doctors will simply chose to save a younger person.

Some won’t help themselves but others as you’ve stated can’t help it.... that won’t matter at the crucial point when the doctors decide.

Regarding the young, the doctors will decide who gets the ventilation based on who’s most healthy, whether they have young children and are likely to survive. The healthy younger will always get priority over the elderly, hence my whole point. If they can help themselves by staying in, really they should...

How the hell will this work? The ones that live alone won't get food or care. The ones that live with families will be exposed anyway. Kids are super spreaders, if we want to slow the spread we need to limit their contact with each other

Freakstar it's to do wit h how contagious it is, and what neasures we can take to protect ourselves. You don't need 100% immunity, it varies for each virus. They've calculated it to be 60% for this virus. It's higher for measles, eg, at 93-95%, which is why it's crucial to maintain vaccination rates.
To be honest I think this is the only way forward and other countries are going to end up following us, un less they can stay in the containment phase. It simply isn't going to be feasible to keep on having mass lockdowns until a mass vaccination programme is available, which is predicted for next June (2021).

@buttonmoonb4tea
We are on our own on this one, and need to make a U turn now.
Wrong. The other countries believe they can eradicate. They are wrong. If China locked everything down and it's still spreading there is no way a lock down will work in Western nations.
Whilst in lockdown the healthworkers / delivery people/ supermarkets... they'll all be spreading it. And even if you do manage to eradicate it.... anyone, from anywhere in the world can start the whole thing off again.
Eradication will not work. That is the expert advice and the rest of the world is not following it.