Release young adults from lockdown first

[emkana]

I think it a good idea - there's been a paper by the University of Warwick.
It's hardest for them and their risk is low.
I'd happily stay in lockdown longer for my children of that age to be "set free"

Surely if they had long term partners they could have arranged to be locked down at the same house - that’s what my son and his partner have done .

@Yesterdayforgotten. Also in my 30s and I van tell you this is damaging my 'financial and life chances' as much as any 20 to 30 year. We're already the generation that got hardest screwed by the first recession and many of us have never gotten to where we should be as a result. But by all means I'll stay in so the 20 year olds can have a shot eh!

Also, because young people are at lower risk they benefit the least personally from the lockdown.

I do think it's harder on them... DS hasn't seen his long term gf for a month...
Ds was in the middle of buying a house... dd is 2nd year NHS type degree so needs to get hours in at sometime
But your DS could be 19 or 31, would it be on then? Our perfect rental came on the market lockdown day but DH and I are 38 and 45 so we'd not be able to apply because we're too old? Lots of older people are in relationships too where they don't live together, so they need companionship and sex less than your son? And plenty of students don't fall into that age bracket, Inc people changing careers, are their degrees less important?

Some of them, like my son, are at the age (23) of just breaking into careers they've spent years pursuing. He has a hard-won internship in June and is extremely worried it will be cancelled now. He's healthy, slim and fit and if he became ill would probably not suffer complications. Keeping him confined to protect his 82-year-old grandmother and her peers (who live in fairly comfortable conditions and have plenty of cash) is certainly an interesting ethical conundrum if you look at it dispassionately. Of course, I appreciate we're also doing this to protect the NHS from collapse.

It won't go down well if my 29 yo DH can go out and 31 yo me can't!!!

Why does that make it harder for him than say, an 80 year old widow who spends all their time out and about usually?
Weren#t you young and in love once. He is supposed to be going on to his next stage of life , moving in with her. I know a lot of young people in this position atm.

Should we be clapping for the 20-30 year olds? No

Surely if they had long term partners they could have arranged to be locked down at the same house - that’s what my son and his partner have done .

perhaps one or both are still working elsewhere and the commute is not do-able, also household insurance is invalid if house if left empty for longer than 4 weeks in most cases, perhaps one has pets that cannot relocate, lots of reasons why people cannot suddenly co-habit

Release them to go where?

Nowhere for them to go

esjee

The younger half of the country have been completely screwed over by the older half imo. That's why I really don't think they should also be loaded with debt to pay for it (bet they will though). Personally I think we should pay for this by massively increasing inheritance taxes. I say this as someone in my 50s who has benefited hugely from intergenerational unfairness and will have a inheritance coming in the next decade and also leaving a large inheritance for my own children.

I'm not convinced. My 20yo DS is furloughed, but although he's bored and earning 20% less, it isn't any harder for him than it is for me, still working (from home), 41, widowed. I'm as bored as he is and the situation with food and isolation is affecting us in the same way. His age doesn't alter the extremity of it. In fact because my bereavement counselling has come to a stop due to lockdown, because finding it really stressful and don't have my usual outlet. Not sure how much harder it would be if I were 30.

@bruffin. A lot of people were planning to do a lot of thing. Not sure why your son's feelings tske precedence.

They aren't going to be social distancing though are they? One word: Tinder.

If you're releasing some to catch it and hopefully become immune, release all low risk, and shield the rest. Releasing the most "prolific socialisers" makes little sense unless it's due to their low personal risk, in which case might as well relase the low risk in their 30s and 40s (who make up many of the core key work population) as well.

I'd happily stay in lockdown longer for my children of that age to be "set free"

Or in other words:

"I'd happily stay in the safety of my home and send younger people out into the workforce to catch coronavirus"

It’s really a variation of herd immunity isn’t it. The ones who will most likely catch it without too much suffering.

Now sure what the answer is but I doubt it’s that.

Some of them, like my son, are at the age (23) of just breaking into careers they've spent years pursuing. He has a hard-won internship in June and is extremely worried it will be cancelled now and I truly feel for him, but what about the ones who have had to do it all later due to family or fiancé's and are 33 in your sons position?

Weren#t you young and in love once.
Oh you think he's hornier than a 35 yo or a 64 yo who is also loving apart from their long term partner and about to cohobsot before the apocalypse struck?

It's just completely generalising saying one age group finds this emotionally harder than another. For every 20 year old that hasn't been able to complete a house sale, there's probably thousands of 30/40/50/60+ year olds worried about their job/ houses/ their kids/ their relationships its shit on most people.

As the older people have apparently done a disservice to just one decade of younger people, perhaps we can sack anyone in retail, entertainment etc jobs and give them to the release youngsters so they can make the most of their life. They deserve it, their bored and horny

"Weren't you young and in love once."

I'm more concerned about the women stuck at home 24/7 with abusive partners.

esjee
what a lovely person you sound, what about a bit of empathy for everyone, its possible you know. I know there are a lot of disappointments at the moment, but I can feel very sorry for my DS missing a major life moment that he has worked hard for.

It isn't just any young adult though i don't think and I think it was just an idea that has been floated (like a myriad of others)

I think the idea was for adults 20-30 who had already left home and didn't live with someone classed as vulnerable. They are at lowest risk statistically of it becoming serious and they were at lowest risk of spreading it to someone vulnerable because they don't live or wouldn't be allowed go see anyone vulnerable.

I'm guessing although it hasn't been stated it's another idea to look at herd immunity and a way to have some people back in to work to keep the economy from crashing completely.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea as you never know who you could spread it to.

it also wouldn't help anyone out with those criteria from being able to relax lockdown except I suppose that if they all got it then there's less people to pass it on to others when they are allowed to rejoin society. Except for the fact that older people and people who do not fit extremely vulnerable categories are out at certain works or still having to be out to collect shopping so while long term it may be helpful in the short term there are others it puts at risk.

I guess i understand how this may impact their (future) life more/longer - job prospects etc although not as much as the people about to draw private pensions who will now spend their retirement with significantly less income, but i don't see any benefit to them coming out of lock down first for them or society. I think it's more likely that its primary aged that will be released first to allow productivity to increase (economic reasons) with wfh still in place and stores still shut all other social distancing remaining the same (health reason) then i guess we look at the figures

I’m not sure I understand how this would work. Can someone explain?

So my friends are 40 (F) and 55 (M). Their children are 22 and 20.

The children live with them. The children are allowed out, but the parents are not? Yet won’t the children bring home any virus anyway? So what’s the point?

How many 20-30 year olds are living alone? It can’t be that many, especially as so many are back from uni?

Surely restrictions being eased should begin with adding groups of workers to the key worker lists? So non essential shops can go back, but those who are able to work from home still do. Weird.

But Bruffin you said it was hitting the 20-30 year olds hardest. Esjee hasn't shown lack of empathy she's just trying to demonstrate that people across the board are hurting. How would you feel if this happened 10 years down the line- your DS and his partner have built a lovely life for themselves and this happened and they risked loosing their careers and possibly the home- this is the reality for plenty of hardworking 30+ people up and down the country. One of my good friends at 38 is expecting her 1st child after 3 rounds of IVF- her husband has just lost his job (USA) and they are besides themselves. its not just 20 year olds that are having their major life moments ruined.

sleeping that's true, but I suppose a line would have to be drawn somewhere and no it wouldn't be fair to the group you mention. But nothing about this pandemic seems fair at the moment.