Relaxing rules for those aged 20-30 only initially

[blossompie]

What do people think about this?
I can see a number of issues with this in my workplace.

Are they planning to reopen pubs bars etc or simply allow 20-30 year olds to roam around freely? I can't quite grasp what the actual plan is reading in the press.
I would be angry if this was allowed though. I'm only just outside the ages but I think it's it right to select by age?

Do you have a link?

It's a crazy idea .

If they open pubs just for them it will create a huge divide. No way will it happen.

Try to find a non subscription article on it. Saw an article in the times on Apple news today if anyone can link it as I'm not subscribed to the times?

Sorry meant to say am trying to find a free article *

Seems a bit pointless. What would they do about workplaces? I'm the only one in my office under 30 so my work couldn't reopen on that basis.

I don't like this idea. It's divisive.
This generation will suffer enough already without taking one for the team.

I wonder if they realise we would be sending them to their deaths, potentially. Lifting the lockdown doesn’t mean the virus is gone.

won't work, and pointless, and will only lead to them spreading it to their families

It will most likely be industry based. Less essential services that can be performed with masks, low amount of clients, respectful of social distancing. Certainly not age related.

I don't believe this will happen and there's no evidence the government are considering it at all. It was a proposal from a group of academics who did research into it. I don't think it's viable. The academics conceded this would result in an estimate 630 premature deaths of people in that age category. I'm in my 20s and if this DID happen, I would enjoy and utilise any extra freedom accorded to me but I don't think it will happen or be viable in any way.

So we would be all getting fake ID's saying we're younger to move about - just like the good old days when you got one to try your luck to get in a club .

It will never work

I can see the sense in having the lowest risk group (assuming they either live alone or with other low-risk people) being allowed more freedoms. They’re less likely to need NHS care so less likely to overwhelm NHS.

I imagine lots of workplaces will still need to remain closed, so it’d be more being able to go out, rather than being forced to.

so maybe opening up universities? lower risk age group (primarily)?

.. except for the staff!
I would have some sympathy with the idea of allowing low-risk people in a low-risk demographic to (eg) socialise together at home as a first step. But there would be too many ifs and buts in reality (eg those living with patents etc).

Haha the fake ID. I don't mean to scaremonger or anything I was genuinely concerned having read the article.

I too think it's far too divisive to roll out. Wondered what people thought about it having read it in the Times, it did suggest Whitehall were considering it.

Won't work as most business owners, managers and senior staff wouldn't be allowed out and/or couldn't find childcarers (many of whom are aged 30 to 60).

If you're going to do it, just let those considered low risk out. That would be most women and children and men aged up to, what, about 55 or 60? Those who are smokers, vapers, heavy drinkers, overweight or relevant underlying conditions would obviously be a different story.

Everyone or no one.
They tried asking nicely before and too many people were dickheads.

It makes sense for those low risk people to go out first, catch the virus and start the herd immunity. Then let out the next, relatively low risk group. Only if they live in low risk households.

I think its an appalling idea. Its ageist.
Not to mention, how are 40 - 60 year olds going to feel seeing everyone else off to work to earn a wage whilst they are still grappling with not enough money for rent, mortgages, bills or food?

It wont work. Other age groups will see them going off to work as assume its ok for them to do it too. It will cause all kinds of arguments and conflicts. terrible idea.

I don't understand why (non very elderly, healthy) women are required to stay home when we are very low risk. Surely we are ideal for herd immunity, to keep the economy going and to get kids out to school (and psychologically healthy) again.

They did say today that certain ages will be released from lockdown first and that it will be certain geographical areas? Is this what they meant?

I dont think women are that low ridk. Still plenty in icus.
Also
We do more childcare and rearing and possibly more kids would be devastated losing mum (as several dont have dads anyway).

But also i cant see a plan where we leave at home the smokers/drinkers etc lol. I would be * if i were going out to work leaving at home all the people who dont give a crap about their health (and who possibly are the ones to run down health services).

Make more sense to let those ones out as they are not risk averse...

I dont see a plan releasing different ages working as so many people live in multi age group households. Though have to say that is also true regarding kids going back to school if parents are 40-50+ or pregnant or diabetic or asthmatic.

The article did mention 20-30 year olds not living at home with their parents so I'm assuming they mean low risk to anyone else.

I wonder if they did it geographically how they'd manage that too @TheHarryFormerlyKnownAsPrince

I was thinking the under 60s (well).