Vulnerable children locked up in flats, deep recession, mental health eroded a future generation screwed

[Borkins]

I hope it flattens that curve. I hope it saves lives. Because huge sacrifices are being made.

Huge sacrifices are being made because the alternative is hundreds of thousands of people dying. That's not great for the kids either.

Why do people magically think their analysis of the economy and the NHS is better than thousands of experts whose actual job this is? The government aren't doing this for the fun of it.

I agree with that laurie. It needs to be for the shortest time possible while we rush through testing for immunity as well as for anyone with it.

And when it's over, the long term cost needs to be paid by those most able to afford it, not those with least.

One of my tenants has been laid off. Being a moral human being, my response was along the lines of fuck the rent and do you need anything. Legally I could wait till the restrictions are over, and then either evict her or raise the rent above local housing allowance, and then plunge her further into poverty by demanding she pays back arrears from the below breadline income benefits will give her. While I easily absorb the dent in our income because there's currently no luxuries to spend it on. Society and the law should not give me that power. Anymore than all the cunts paying nmw and offering zero hour contracts should be in a position to destroy their employees lives as they please.

Population of uk 66 440 000. 80% infections rate leaves 58 467 200 infected.

Collateral damage (the only 3% death rate from china after extensive community testing) 1 520 147 deaths. 17, 000 young folk if the 0.03% is correct.

That leaves the 15% that "only" need oxygen to survive. 8 770 080 people in need of ventilation for up to 3 weeks. We had 4000 ventilators, 11,000 once we close the theatres, 21000 if dyson can get ttheirs made quick enough.

If "only" 60% of the population get it only
1 195 920 people will die. If we get oxygen to the nearly 6 million who need it they will survive. 11000 ventilators remember.

In order to save your Doctors you need to isolate your old folk ideally before theyshow symptoms. Something like this should work.

Incidentally the death toll at Auschwitz was about 1.1 million so about the same as 60% infection rate if we save all those in need of ventilation. It was only the disabled and old and those that were considered degenerate.

That was considered a war crime and one of the most horrific episodes in the history of humanity.

Have any of you listened to yourselves?

In this case though it's people is relatively comfortable situations pontificating about how 'we all need to make sacrifices' and so accused children should just suck it up and anyway maybe they'll learn something from it and what about the war.

I'm finding the utter lack of empathy with the many many many people who will be in terrible conditions really depressing. And tbh I think a lot of it is an excuse for people's hidden feelings about others to come out. Stuff like, people with mental health problems are being pathetic and selfish. Children should be banned from supermarkets (even if that means many single parent families will struggle) etc. Other threads. Sure there's more of this type of attitude against other groups as well.

Essentially human beings don't change, are tribal, and pretty unpleasant on the whole.

'That was considered a war crime and one of the most horrific episodes in the history of humanity.

Have any of you listened to yourselves?'

You are comparing people worried about the impact on children in abusive families or cramped living conditions etc to Nazis. Wow that really is a push further than I've seen even on here, to those flagging that the lockdown itself will not be consequence free.

'it's been suggested there will be increases in DV, child abuse and csa'

'you're a Nazi stfu'

At yet that is the death toll you are advocating being ok.

Because it is "only the weak and disabled".

If you find out the stats are wrong and it isnt just the weak and disabled will that make it less ok?

I agree beetroot

I think people are also looking just at the risks of covid, because they know, or assume their personal risk of lockdown and economic fallout are zero. Being vulnerable to coronavirus or in the tiny minority of healthy people that get seriously ill or die is a risk to every sector of society.

The dangers of lockdown, the economy and the long term cost will be shared by the poorest and other peoples dc in the future. So it doesn't matter if the risk factor for those groups is 1% or 50%, it's acceptable collateral damage.

I'm finding the utter lack of empathy with the many many many people who will be in terrible conditions really depressing.

Not in the least bit surprising though. After all, if we cared more as a society, there would be far, far fewer people living in such dire circumstances in the first place.

There’s another thread on here at the moment about whether or not the benefits of saving these elderly souls is detrimental to the younger generation. Interesting thread

What is the name of the thread? I posted one back when the schools were closed but it was deleted as being ageist. Are mumsnet taking a more liberal stance now?

Grow up. Many of us grew up in apartments and were not damaged by it. It's the norm in most of the world.

Oh the irony choli!

So it doesn't matter if the risk factor for those groups is 1% or 50%, it's acceptable collateral damage.

But we’re caught between a rock and a hard place because the outcomes for these people are even worse if all our essential services are hugely compromised, which they will be if we let this rip.

I agree with you that we need get out of this ASAP and that those most able to should pick up the tab eventually.

I also hope, perhaps in vain, that this is a wake up call to people to put the needs of the vulnerable higher up the pecking order when we get out of this mess and vote accordingly.

You are comparing people worried about the impact on children in abusive families or cramped living conditions etc to Nazis.

I think they were comparing the projected death toll for coronavirus in the UK to the death toll at Auschwitz in a bid to make people realise that it's actually a very significant number and that the demographics affected don't make it less significant.

to those flagging that the lockdown itself will not be consequence free.

Does anyone actually think it will be consequence free? I think the argument is whether the specific consequence for the vulnerable children who miss school exceeds the potential fallout of not going into lockdown, not that there will be no consequence of lockdown.

Vunerable children don't just live in flats....what a totally close-minded statement....

Agree (again) laurie. I was thinking of those that are either ignorant or simply don't care about the cost.

Posters commenting that it's fine because we'll all inherit, just do yoga, all vulnerable dc are at school, the dc might learn something etc and the latest winner 'it's ok cos I grew up in a flat'

Of course the lockdown will negatively impact lots of people, but unfortunately it's the best option. And while it will take time to move past I simply do not think a few months lockdown will cause the dramatic long term impact that 1 million + deaths would. Sorry if people struggle to understand that basic fact, but there's no current better option and whining about it like there is is ridiculous.

Needs must and everyone staying in is a need for the greater good.

It’s shit but it has to be done to save lives.

I agree @LaurieMarlow. There is no good outcome just least worst ones, but certainly half a million dead people in a few months would by far be the worst.

Completely agree OP. I'm wondering how will look back on this

We will look back on it with the benefit of hindsight, which is completely different to living through it as we are atm.

My hope is that when we do look back on it, we assess the damage, do what we can to fix it and learn lessons for the future.

There seems to be an assumption that because a vulnerable child has a place in a school, they will be there. People are being encouraged to only send children to school if they are safer there than at home. Parents have a choice to make - will my DC with autism be better off at home, or at school, where his teacher has been redeployed to another class, and the TA he trusts can't come in because of the risk to her own family she is isolating? If your child has CP do you send them, as CP doesn't affect immunity? Maybe not, if it affects their ability to fight the illness in some way (affects everyone differently, but perhaps they struggle to cough effectively). Then there are the families who are vulnerable and under social care. Are their parents going to accurately assess risk? Possibly that's why they ended up needing a social worker in the first place. Those who are at a lower tier than social worker don't qualify for school place, and agencies are being told not to visit. I worry about these families. Some have had social workers put the children on and off plans several times, and this is an unprecedented situation. Yes parents should step up, and the vast majority of parents are doing so. But please don't blame those of us who work with vulnerable families for worrying about not just our current caseloads, but previous ones, the ones that come in and out of services, and the ones who we don't know about, who might have been referred this week if their teacher had seen them and knew things were not going well at home.
I'm not worried for my kids, they are spending more time on spelling and times tables apps than I usually allow, they are absolutely fine. I'm worried for the kids whose parents are usually just hanging in there, and thus situation tips them over the edge.

None of this means that I'm not as scared as everyone else about the impact on the NHS. I wish austerity had never cut NHS funding and SureStart / education budget / youth work.

Hopefully we'll look back and say shit as it was in the short term, for once we did what was right, rather than what was popular or in our personal interests, and we changed the course of history because for the first time we made sure those that could least afford it didn't pay the long term cost. And the vulnerable that paid the short term cost were rewarded and respected for their sacrifices.

Won't happen, instead in 50yrs time we'll be explaining on tv documentaries that the poor and young were the popular choice to pay the economic price because nobody wanted to rock the wealthy boat or lose the grey vote. And then we'll have to explain to open mouthed dc the concept of a state pension.

I agree OP.

I’m in my 40s and have no expectation of a state pension.