It's just an overreaction.

[madcow88]

Now don't get me wrong I followed the rules to the letter and still am doing as I don't want to break the law.

However I think it's all a massive overreaction and I don't want to sit by and allow my children's generation to be destroyed.

Their education is totally fucked, they will not get to have the same social experiences as we did as young people.

Why is everyone happily sitting by and allowing our government to restrict our lives over a virus that kills 0.01% of people. Whilst 1000s of people are dying every day due to the lack of treatment and social interactions.

I really just do not feel comfortable with all the laws on our freedom being changed so dramatically over a virus if truth be told is not as deadly as they would like us to be believed.

Don't get me wrong I have sympathy for those people who lost their lives and for the people who will lose their lives in the future but no more than for the people who die of flu and other viruses each year.

*And in response to your post I would comment on a brain surgeons operation as I have had 29 operations on my brain in the past couple of years and in the past I have had to step in and advise when they have made mistakes and they have several times.

You advised brain surgeons when they allegedly made mistakes?

I don't know how you all have the cheek to speak to others who do not share your opinion in the way you do!! You all really need to get a life.

Are you speaking generally?

Yes people do tend to get rude on here. Across ALL the opinions.

But generally I'm not bothered. The rudest tend to have the most extreme views. And that's how they defend them.

@madcow88, presuming you’re not a brain surgeon yourself then it’s rich calling out other people for having an opinion. Your anecdote just highlights hypocrisy.

Also just because someone is an experienced professional in one area doesn’t mean they are the guru of all. I wouldn’t want a brain surgeon trying to replace my knee.

@VickySunshine

.... so you would just let this virus rage throughout the general population unchecked and it's up to the vulnerable to make their own arrangements ?. How many people , do you suggest , would die if we did that then ?.

Every person who is 'saved' from Covid will only die of something else.

We need to get a lot more comfortable with our own mortality - the collective sticking of fingers in ears, saying 'la la la, we can't heeeaaar yooou' is just childish.

Our civilisation is being destroyed because people are unable to face the fact that their parents/grandparents will not always be with them.

@VickySunshine

I don’t think anyone is advocating letting the virus burn through the vulnerable.

What should happen is that individuals who are genuinely at high risk are supported and financed to stay at home to keep themselves safe and out of hospital.

The rest of us who are at tiny risk need to get on with things to make sure we have an economy left to fund the NHS.

"Every person who is 'saved' from Covid will only die of something else."

"Every person who is 'saved' from anything will only die of something else
. May as well scrap all hospitals then and get used to our own mortality. More women will die of childbirth. Whilst are at it why bother saving people from other diseases by immunising them. They only die of something else anyway.

What a ridiculous argument. If we did what your suggesting I'm not sure our " civilisation" would be worth saving.

The problem is that people now seem to be exceptionally selfish

Anybody over the age of about 50 or so will already have had an education, career, family, opportunity to travel etc.

Anybody in this age bracket seriously thinking it ok to steal their own D/GCs' futures to enable them to have yet more of something their own D/GCs will likely never have at all needs to think very carefully about who is the selfish person in this scenario.

I'm in my 50s btw.

Our civilisation is being destroyed because people are unable to face the fact that their parents/grandparents will not always be with them.

At the risk of offending OP.
What complete ARSE.

Why is everyone happily sitting by and allowing our government to restrict our lives over a virus that kills 0.01% of people.

This is a new low in facts pulled from an OP's bum (in between advising brain surgeons, no less!).

0.1% (not, I might add, 0.01%) is one estimate of the death rate from seasonal flu - not the novel coronavirus that causes Covid-19. Fatality rates differ in different countries, and also as time passes, information is shared, and better understanding re treatment grows. The fatality rates are also influenced by preexisting risk factors, so the range is considerable; and frankly I don't think we can put a figure on it until this is all over.

But what a disgusting thread you have fostered, where people are calling for the taxing and culling of an older generation. Foul.

The rest of us who are at tiny risk need to get on with things to make sure we have an economy left to fund the NHS

^This 100% - there needs to be an other way of dealing with covid-19. Because destroying people's livelihood is not a valid solution!

May as well scrap all hospitals then and get used to our own mortality

The NHS makes this kind of cost/benefit analysis every day.

You're being incredibly naive if you are suggesting that all life has equal value and equal measures should be taken to 'save' everyone.

@Ylvamoon

The rest of us who are at tiny risk need to get on with things to make sure we have an economy left to fund the NHS

^This 100% - there needs to be an other way of dealing with covid-19. Because destroying people's livelihood is not a valid solution!

This.

@sunglassesonthetable

Our civilisation is being destroyed because people are unable to face the fact that their parents/grandparents will not always be with them.

At the risk of offending OP.
What complete ARSE.

An 'argument' on the level of a 5 year old (such as yours) doesn't have the authority to offend.

"the NHS makes this kind of cost/benefit analysis every day"

A fact I commented on earlier in the thread.

Newsflash: after doing the above it was decided to prioritise covid over lots of other services in an effort to save people's parents and grandparents.

Still doesn't mean your argument about dying of something else makes sense

An 'argument' on the level of a 5 year old (such as yours) doesn't have the authority to offend.

Wasn't intended to offend actually.

Shocked that ANYONE thinks that protecting a diabetic, or someone living with cancer, or BAME population, or a person over 60/70/80 etc

is because you can't get to grip with the fact that one day every one dies. ?

NOT THE SAME THING AT ALL.

[quote MummyPop00]@gypsywater

No, it’d be across the board. The problem is we have a glut of Boomers & not enough taxpayers for the foreseeable & Covid has not helped the situation one bit. So when the balance is more balanced, maybe the tax would/could be reduced once more if so desired.[/quote]
A glut of boomers how charming. Would you say a glut of black people or a glut of gay people? Maybe you would.

Also, educate your self. Lots of boomers are still of working age. And those retired wealthy boomers you hate so much and want to see dead? They pay tax too.

This thread is attracting the sociopaths like flies to shit.

Over 50s? They are comparatively young. I'm almost 50 but I haven't travelled yet, don't have grandchildren yet either and don't expect any for at least ten years and my life isn't over yet. So don't talk like it is.

This thread is attracting the sociopaths like flies to shit.

isn't it just

Right now shouldn’t we be hearing about an amazing plan the government has to stop the spread in care homes? You know learn from the first time round.
Resources should be diverted there (rather than encouraging us to all mingle in restaurants and pubs all summer.

They should have sufficient and quick test turnaround. They should have amazing infection control. We should at least try and protect the vulnerable. Nobody is saying it is easy. But is locking down and opening up repeatedly either.

Saving lives takes priority over everything else. Jobs, businesses, parties, social gatherings, personal liberty - they must all be stopped if it means we can save even one life.

That's why we lock down every winter to prevent 20,000 flu deaths!!

....oh, wait......

@gje943

Saving lives takes priority over everything else. Jobs, businesses, parties, social gatherings, personal liberty - they must all be stopped if it means we can save even one life.

That's why we lock down every winter to prevent 20,000 flu deaths!!

....oh, wait......

Almost three times that number have died in less than a year, and that's with having a lockdown. What do you think would have happened if there hadn't been some sort of lockdown?

@NikeDeLaSwoosh

May as well scrap all hospitals then and get used to our own mortality

The NHS makes this kind of cost/benefit analysis every day.

You're being incredibly naive if you are suggesting that all life has equal value and equal measures should be taken to 'save' everyone.

Absolutely this.

Because some of us have people in our lives that we don’t want to die basically. And if it does get overwhelming then you could lose a lot more than you are now which isn’t much to be honest. Things are relatively back to normal just need to distance and wear a mask etc.

But there is a national programme for Flu vaccinations, so that is the mitigation we use for that. Maybe some form of social distancing and mask wearing during flu season will become more usual.

@eufycurious current death figures are 41,000...that's just over twice as much, not "nearly three times that number". Many of those would have been terminally ill anyway, and many more probably died "with" not "of" COVID. You are aware the figure represents "deaths REGARDLESS OF CAUSE within 28 days of a positive test". One could test positive for COVID, get hit by a bus and still be recorded as a COVID-19 fatality...

Why is 10,000 - 20,000 flu deaths acceptable to you, but 41,000 COVID deaths means we have to lock the country down? We've lost all sense of proportionality.

What level of deaths is acceptable to you before we should lock everything down? Come on...give me the number

Without a lockdown I suspect we may have had more deaths, although the jury is still out on their effectiveness; but we would not be seeing the current rise in cases due to increased immunity within the population - you just have to look at Sweden for proof of that.

There are also the MASSIVE, incalculable economic, social and health costs of lockdown to consider.