My teens are saying they will ignore any new restrictions

[WearyandBleary]

Big argument this evening. My teens are saying they will ignore any new restrictions because they are mixing at school/college anyway, so what’s the point of not mixing outside of school?

They are really furious. I am quite shocked at how angry they are.

Are they being really selfish? I’m so cross with them. How are other people’s teens taking the possibility of more restrictions?

@MillyMollyFarmer

I'm saying that if EVERYONE WORE A MASK, KEPT DISTANCE, WASHED HANDS we would be in a better place

Most people are. In fact British people have been more compliant than almost any other country. The fact is, once they started lifting restrictions it was always going to increase. They even said that themselves. Pity they didn’t plan better for it.

You must live in an alternative reality UK then. Actually maybe not. Compliant with nonsensical, changing, idiotic rules. As there is no rule to wear masks during work, school,...etc. So, no, your point is not valid. Everyone, everywhere, all the time. Simple. Virus can't find another suitable host it will die. Not brain surgery. and yet, trafalgar square on the weekend, every school in the country, ....

@MillyMollyFarmer

I'm saying that if EVERYONE WORE A MASK, KEPT DISTANCE, WASHED HANDS we would be in a better place

Most people are. In fact British people have been more compliant than almost any other country. The fact is, once they started lifting restrictions it was always going to increase. They even said that themselves. Pity they didn’t plan better for it.

Yes, the problem is that we let it get too far embedded in the community before doing anything. It isn't possible for the whole population to SD even should everyone want to, there are enough jobs and situations that are essential and that simply don't allow it, meaning it didn't and couldn't happen even during lockdown. And once the virus has been allowed to spread enough in the population, there isn't a way to lift restrictions that doesn't increase the cases.

And the really shit thing is all this was known before the curriculum was paused indefinitely.

They knew that every year students fall behind in their learning if kids are missing huge chunks of their education due to health. Parents with SN children have been talking about this for decades. And as those same parents knew before CV, their vulnerable kids didn't matter to the masses and sat next to kids who should have been at home with their flu, D&V etc.

So, no, your point is not valid.

Yes it is. People have followed the rules. You’re making up new ones you think should apply.

Don't blame them. If your daughter just sees her boyfriend, its not like saying she wants to hang out with hundreds of stranggers in an illegal rave.

I don't use the word 'gross' in the teenagers might say it. I mean 'horrifying' or 'reprehensible'. Is that clearer?

@TheClaws

I don't use the word 'gross' in the teenagers might say it. I mean 'horrifying' or 'reprehensible'. Is that clearer?

Its reprehensible to talk about the impact this will have on young people?

I don't use the word 'gross' in the teenagers might say it. I mean 'horrifying' or 'reprehensible'. Is that clearer?
Its reprehensible to talk about the impact this will have on young people?

No, Rufus, it's reprehensible to make the older/vulnerable pay the younger generation for all the stuff the've missed etc.

Also, do you have children in your life @TheClaws ? Do you think those parent who have seen a huge impact on their children from missing 6 months of school and are watching them so happy to be back are all lying? Or is the impact on those children a moral and acceptable thing because, though IMO being children they should come first, the impact is fine as it was done to protect another group in the population so is therefore acceptable?

Have you any idea what it is like to be a child/teenager/young person and also to be in the vulnerable category?

To know that not only have you had to give up entertainment/sports/ education/the pub for yourself, just as much as any of your friends, but that your friends and their parents would find your death a price they'd quite happily pay as long as the rest of them could return to normal?

Oh how awful for them, they spend all day with their friends at school and that still isnt enough.

There are people who live alone and working from home all day dont have face to face conversations with their friends or see them for days or even weeks

Now with restrictions coming in those living alone its even harder.

But God forbid teenagers can't go without seeing their friends for a few hours in the evening.

Fml this is the next generation coming in...God help us. Selfish, entitled with no thought to other people.

Now i hope we all go back into proper lockdown cos it'll remind them to be more grateful

This isnt forver and if they cannot cope with temp situations of a bit of sacrifice how are they gonna do that as adults like sacrificing to save up for a house etc....

I think those who compare death tolls from other things miss a point. The point is the death toll COULD be catastrophic if we don't pull the breaks again. I think most people can't see beyond themselves. I kept the rules because I fear for my mum who I am not ready to lose yet. I want others to because I know of friends who have died both of the virus and the wiser impact.

I'm suffering with my own health issues currently and have been sent for urgent tests and 2 week referrals which weeks later still haven't materialised into any appointments or tests because of "COVID". There are so many others who have their non COVID related health ignored or put in the back burner because of this pandemic.

I think people are narrow minded to just think of themselves because I think the wider implications of we don't stem this things will ultimately affect everyone. I would rather have a year or so with massive disruptions and difficulties but a brighter future. If we don't we will see longer long term implications. Our children will already be paying this debt back most of their lives, but we literally only paid back the debt from the last world war, and I don't resent that.

However, I think the OPs teenagers make a valid point, the government needs to improve isn't logic because the reality is schools and colleges are not socially distanced so what difference does it make if they see those same people at other times? The rules make no sense.

It's only works as a all or nothing thing. We lockdown for a short period as much as possible or we don't. Creating conflicting rules makes the entire thing pointless.

@corythatwas

Also, do you have children in your life @TheClaws ? Do you think those parent who have seen a huge impact on their children from missing 6 months of school and are watching them so happy to be back are all lying? Or is the impact on those children a moral and acceptable thing because, though IMO being children they should come first, the impact is fine as it was done to protect another group in the population so is therefore acceptable?

Have you any idea what it is like to be a child/teenager/young person and also to be in the vulnerable category?

To know that not only have you had to give up entertainment/sports/ education/the pub for yourself, just as much as any of your friends, but that your friends and their parents would find your death a price they'd quite happily pay as long as the rest of them could return to normal?

I'm completely on your side. Additionally, I've been 'vulnerable' since I was young, so I sympathise. I've always had issues doing what everyone else did without second thought.

@cyclingmad nice to read a post with so much empathy for young people’s mental health

@Someonesayroadtrip

There is no evidence from anywhere in the world that the catastrophic death toll predicted by Ferguson was at all realistic so long as precautions like social distancing and masks remain in place.

[quote Ecosse]@Someonesayroadtrip

There is no evidence from anywhere in the world that the catastrophic death toll predicted by Ferguson was at all realistic so long as precautions like social distancing and masks remain in place.[/quote]
We can't social distance permanently though, it isn't practical and goes against everything that makes us human.

@MillyMollyFarmer

So, no, your point is not valid.

Yes it is. People have followed the rules. You’re making up new ones you think should apply.

No (well, sort of), I'm pointing out that either we want to live in a nanny state or we use our brains. What I see is that wast majority is:

• against nanny state
• doesn't want to move even one braincell
• abides by the idiotic rules for the sake of then being able to say "I followed the rules"

-doesn't give a rat's ass about others and are totally selfish twats

The main responsibility lies with government. We have it for the reason to make decisions, be informed and be experts on issues we, as common people, might be not.
But once it was evident that this gov is making a shitshow of everything it even looks at, I think people's common sense should have kicked in. and it didn't.

Now i hope we all go back into proper lockdown cos it'll remind them to be more grateful

Or alternatively, it will make it clear to them that they don't actually have to observe it if they don't want to, because the state isn't in a position to force compliance from millions of unwilling people. Hilarious that you talk of them being selfish and entitled with no thought of others too, considering what too many of their elders have inflicted on them with their voting choices.

Could I just ask in a tiny voice... let's just say physical distancing. Social distancing means something else.

Again, something that this gov has messed up big time in terms of comms.grrrr

@kittensarecute

Absolutely- but I think social distancing is preferable to being locked in the house until we have a vaccine like some seem to want.

@TheSunIsStillShining

Could I just ask in a tiny voice... let's just say physical distancing. Social distancing means something else.

Again, something that this gov has messed up big time in terms of comms.grrrr

Fair point.

So the ONS said that Coronavirus was the cause of 1% of deaths in the UK In the second week of sept- 1%

What measures are we taking for the other 99%?

These measures are hard to fathom for teenagers and I can fully understand why! If I were a teenager/young adult, I wouldn’t be complying, it’s as simple as that.

@TheClaws

OK TheClaws Amoral then. Why is it amoral one way and not the other? Protecting the elderly and the vulnerable comes at great cost to the (many magnitudes larger) group of everyone else who is not. Why is that moral? Why is it moral to protect one group at the expense of another? I want to live by principles of consent, of being able to regard the whole situation and weigh up what is best for everyone, not just one group. I don't think that's amoral.

Linaya, when you weigh up the choice between death/serious side effects of disease for one group versus, for example, a year of interrupted education for another. (You'll note I didn't state 'no education.') Death is a far greater cost than anything you list. COVID can affect anyone. It is risky for teenagers to ignore guidelines and potentially spread the virus as it could affect an asthmatic friend; his immune-compromised mother; her father who had a silent heart attack a week ago; or you who opened the shop door after them. And so on. To do that knowingly is amoral.

But this isn't what I asked in my longer post (from memory, on lunch break s typing fast sorry) It isn't only about weighing up a year of interrupted education in one group vs death in another is it? There is the impact of other conditions going untreated and all the economic impacts, poverty, loss of jobs, institutions. Poverty shortens life expectancy very considerably. But it sounds like you are saying that deaths from this one particular disease absolutely do outweigh all of the other impacts.

As for teenagers not following guidelines, I said I understand why they are angry, not that I would let my own children do it. We've followed the rules.

• No (well, sort of), I'm pointing out that either we want to live in a nanny state or we use our brains. What I see is that wast majority is:

• against nanny state
• doesn't want to move even one braincell
• abides by the idiotic rules for the sake of then being able to say "I followed the rules"

-doesn't give a rat's ass about others and are totally selfish twats*

‘Use our brains’, what do you mean? By wearing masks non stop? Why do you think you’re better placed to create rules than the experts? They are evidence based guidelines, whereas your suggestions are simply based on an uneducated hysterical opinion. You seem really unpleasant calling people all sorts of things because they won’t follow rules you’ve invented.

Teenagers have similar levels of ‘selfishness’ as toddlers due to (absolutely necessary) changes in their brain at this time.

They want to hang out with their friends, not elderly unwell people, and the risk to them is absolutely tiny. I can completely see why they went to do this and I dare say at 18 years old I would have done whatever I fancied.

Young people have been repeatedly shafted and have changed thrust upon them (Brexit/Tory government as an example). Why shouldn’t they do whatever they fuck they want that’s what older people do?

But this isn't what I asked in my longer post (from memory, on lunch break s typing fast sorry) It isn't only about weighing up a year of interrupted education in one group vs death in another is it?

That's why I said 'when you weigh up the choice between death/serious side effects versus, for example, a year of** interrupted education for another ...