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"

@bruffin "tbh i do think its hard on them. haven't you ever been young and in love. Blah blah.' All I did was point out its hard on everyone and your son isn't special. Get over it.

I'm just think about this in context of my DH's work. Most senior and middle management are 40+. So you send all the 20-30 year olds back to work. What are you supposed to ask them to do? Take all the middle managers that have been furloughed off the scheme and send them back too??

It's an interesting one but there are losts of ramifications if policies like this were introduced.

eg. would businesses in the future be more likely to age discriminate if they anticipated future pandemics and theorised a younger workforce would be able to resume work more quickly?

Women seem to be less badly affected overall as well - what if women were allowed out of lockdown first?

They're ideas that could lead to social unrest I guess?

Newsflash: you miss out on life because you're dead, not because you had a temporary time in lockdown to save lives and didn't get to see your girlfriend for a while .

After this lockdown I know plenty of people who will be glad not to see their Dps for a while!

esjee, you really are not a very nice person, do grown up.

Some of these "young adults" are working i think it is a bit insulting to adultatreating them like some sort of snowflake who needs out first.it is hard for us all.

They need to, and undoubtedly will, relax restrictions on people working in production, logistics etc. To get the economy moving.

I'm 24 it's really not that hard. All equal adults or not. I don't see why it's harder for me, who can work from home, vs my 55 year old mum

Although reading on yes I suppose employment and housing worries could be worse for early 20s if they're in an unstable position

What about theunder 30s with children do they just run out of the door after lockdown and leave the kids to it😀

Really the answer would be to get rid of anyone over 50.! (tongue in cheek before I get jumped on).

Once again, as with Brexit, ageism in this country is rearing its ugly head.

The narrative of all these wealthy baby boomers who have ruined the future for everyone else is becoming a little tiresome.

Everyone is suffering because of this. My 90 year old Dad is 150 miles away and not in the best of health. I may never see him again. My DP's business has totally collapsed, so no, I don't think that age group are suffering more than others.

If there is a compelling reason to release people by age then fair enough but at the moment all I can see this proposal doing is setting people against each other instead of uniting us.

It would be nice to be able to have a discussion about this without reducing it to over 50s bad, everyone else good.

I think its a practical and pragmatic idea. We have to ease out of lock down eventually. I must say I am finding the mindset of people quite disturbing. It's a sort of why are that group so special?! and what about meeee and (as demonstrated on previous threads with regards to children) almost anti youth outlook, instead of ok, lets all co-operate, maybe this is the best way to get the country eventually moving again.

And yes like it or not the children are (via rules of nature) the future. So a young robust workforce matters hugely.

What about the under 30s, with or without underlying conditions, who don't want to take the risk? It's a lower risk for them but still a risk. People under 30 have died.

I am not anti youth at all I get it is hard but life has changed for us all nobodies lifestyle is more worthy than others if anything children need to get back to routine as quickly is possible they understand less.

TheCountessofFitzdotterel Thu 09-Apr-20 12:10:18

'The risk of transmitting to other people is the same whatever the age. Or doesn't that matter to you?'

Do we know that?
I thought the assumption was still that less severe cases shed less virus which means it's not the same. But knowledge is moving fast so interested to be pointed to research showing otherwise.

Why are you assuming that the under 30s will get mild cases? Try telling that to the families of the people under 30 who have already died from it. Hint for you if it's too difficult to grasp - mild cases don't kill.

No, this is ludicrous! Aren’t they, along with teens, the age group that are more likely to socialise in larger groups And therefore contribute to most spreading? Bizarre notion.

*and

I dont think there is much wrong with the mindset of my DC and their friends, they are getting on with their work as best they can whether wfh or like ds(manufacturing vital medicines) rota wfh and office.

I don't actually think this is necessarily a bad idea, although given that everything is shut I'm not sure what they would do other than visit each other's houses. I'm assuming that it wouldn't be mandatory that they had to go out of course, so those who don't want to take additional risks wouldn't have to.

Is there a reason why the cut-off age is 30 though? I thought both 20-30 year olds and 30-40 year olds had a 0.2% (ie 1 in 500) chance of dying.

My DH is in his 40s though so I guess I'd have to stay in. There are a few things I miss (taking DS to baby groups, going to the office to work, frequent walks outdoors, taking DS to the park) but I think some of those wouldn't be possible even in a more relaxed lock-down and I can live without doing this stuff.

Positive
They are the types to build up hard immunity

A Welsh doctor said that his ICU is full of people in their 20’s, 30’s and 40’s and anyone who thinks that, because they are young they either won’t get this or will only get a mild version are wrong.

No. Fuck off. Lockdown should be reduced gradually but to link it to age group is ridiculous.

Jesus I've heard it all now.