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?

@Napqueen1234

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?

I think there comes a point where it isn’t even selfishness it just literally shouldn’t be them that is isolating. It makes no sense to me that entire universities have asked their students to completely self isolate and yet the elderly population haven’t been asked this and are allowed to go about their days. It’s completely illogical

@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?

No I don't and I am very sorry you are in this position, but that's unfair and incorrect to say I'm wishing death on vulnerable children.

The study I have seen from August cited in the Times says 651 children were admitted to hospital with covid and tragically of these 6 children died. The children who died had profound co-morbidities already, described as life-limiting. So I don't think it's right to say I am wishing death on vulnerable children or think it's a price worth paying to avoid all the other costs I listed (excess deaths from other conditions, economic impact, rises in poverty etc etc). I think that's a bit of hyperbole on your side. If I am wrong and this study is wrong then I apologise.

As I said before I have abided by the rules and will continue to do so. However longer term I'm not sure as a society we can sustain further lockdowns for the reasons I've already set out. It just isn't feasible IMO.

Backhanded apology, Linaya. "The children who died had profound co-morbidities already, described as life-limiting ..." Really? And then you blame the other poster's very real pain on hyperbole?

The study I have seen from August cited in the Times says 651 children were admitted to hospital with covid and tragically of these 6 children died. The children who died had profound co-morbidities already, described as life-limiting. So I don't think it's right to say I am wishing death on vulnerable children or think it's a price worth paying to avoid all the other costs I listed (excess deaths from other conditions, economic impact, rises in poverty etc etc). I think that's a bit of hyperbole on your side. If I am wrong and this study is wrong then I apologise.

There's basically very little difference in the restrictions (he's made a speech in the Commons) so I'd let it go for now

Linaya, there seems to be quite a bit of evidence suggesting older children/teens/young adults are just as vulnerable to LongCovid as older people. So if it's not the young children themselves, it will be their siblings. Not perhaps dead, but quite possibly disabled for life, certainly ill for a very long time.

My dd had similar symptoms develop from a different virus last year: it affected her brain and took her nearly a year to learn to walk properly again- and that was without any of the lung, heart or kidney damage the Covid virus gives rise to. The mental toll was enormous. I can't bear the thought of her having to go through that again, but with more long-term damage.

I myself am a university teacher. I worry for my mature students, but I also worry for my younger vulnerable students. I may be prepared to take a risk for myself (as long as it didn't affect my dd), but not for them.

I also have colleagues who will not be able to return to teach these students because they contracted Covid in March and have not recovered. Some of these tutors are young, some have young families. Those children are suffering too.

For the record, my dd does not suffer with a life-limiting condition, there is absolutely no reason she couldn't live as long as her peers- if they care about keeping her safe.

@MillyMollyFarmer

* 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.

Please look out into the world. Mask wearing is not something that I invented or came up with. Half the world is doing it all the time. !Scientists! are proving it's effectiveness and use.

Just for mental exercise....
What evidence is the rule of 6 based on when kids go on public transport, spend 8 hours shoulder to shoulder in not too well ventilated classrooms,.... ?
Please point me to scientific evidence that this gov used ever?
The UK gov guidance is boris pulling things from his arse.

As kids point out: it is utter nonsense and bullocks mostly. and they are right.

The UK gov guidance is boris pulling things from his arse

So are you though. Please point to the solid scientific evidence continuous mask wearing by all is necessary or effective. You don’t do something just because other countries are doing it. What an absurd suggestion.

Scotland's new rules today allow 12-17yo's to meet in groups of 6 outdoors only. That group of 6 is exempt from the two household rule.

That seems a lot more sensible to say to the teens "You can meet up, but it must be outdoors and you must be sensible about group sizes and if we have too we'll curtail it more" and limit the amount of groups knocking about together.

@lyralalala I hadn't seen that, that's great news. I was so worried about my teen getting a criminal record for being outside with his mates, feels like a real blast of common sense.

They mix at school, uni. so why not let the teens get on with it.

See Hancock relented on grandparent care for children whether formal or informal, good news, not that I would have obeyed any way.

You don’t do something just because other countries are doing it.

You do when it is one of the things shown to have a positive impact, surely.

[quote rookiemere]@lyralalala I hadn't seen that, that's great news. I was so worried about my teen getting a criminal record for being outside with his mates, feels like a real blast of common sense.[/quote]
I think it's sensible considering a lot of parents will allow their teens to mix anyway, so I think people are more likely to make their kids comply if there's at least a bit of leeway.

Under 12's are exempt from numbers and household numbers both indoors and out. Over 12's outdoors only.

The exemptions to meeting indoors include extended households, informal regular childcare and, interestingly, non-cohabiting couples.

It seems like a bit more thought has gone into "what will people actually do..." with those rules.

It makes no sense to me that entire universities have asked their students to completely self isolate

It's complete nonsense. How many uni students have regular contact with elderly grandparents? Very few during term-time.

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

For what, exactly?

The young are going to bear the brunt of both Brexit and covid - I don't think they've much to be grateful for.

It’s pretty simple. We can’t do everything. We can’t have schools open etc ... and then everyone be social outside AS WELL.
Why don’t people get that? All This ‘I can do this but not that doesn’t make sense’ is crap. It’s not rocket science. We have to minimise risk. Just because you can go to school does not give the excuse to expose yourself to risk again at the weekend.
Yes they are being selfish.

@cologne4711

It makes no sense to me that entire universities have asked their students to completely self isolate

It's complete nonsense. How many uni students have regular contact with elderly grandparents? Very few during term-time.

It is just at the start isn't it, to stop those arriving with covid spreading across the whole cohort.

This will help universities stay open.

Students come into contact with vulnerable people all day every day, in shops, cafes, doctors, hairdressers, cleaners, lecturers, so limiting asymptomatic spread is important. Plus some students are vulnerable.

And long covid could fuck a degree!

@Dee1975

It’s pretty simple. We can’t do everything. We can’t have schools open etc ... and then everyone be social outside AS WELL. Why don’t people get that? All This ‘I can do this but not that doesn’t make sense’ is crap. It’s not rocket science. We have to minimise risk. Just because you can go to school does not give the excuse to expose yourself to risk again at the weekend. Yes they are being selfish.

Couldn't agree more.

The most simple of concepts and beyond the understanding of so many.

You can see why some are likely to though, if you bring it down to a simple outlook:

They mix in an overcrowded classroom with no masks and no SD, and little ventilation.

They mix on school buses wearing masks but with no Sdjng and probably little ventilation.

They mix with hundreds in school corridors with no SD and no ventilation, albeit with masks in some schools.

So you can see why they'd then think it makes little difference if they then hang out and mix after school outdoors in the fresh air. It's a safer environment than where they're mixing all day. So if they just follow that logic of course it would feel (and be) safer there than elsewhere.

Fortunately the rules today in England and Scotland at least allow them to still mix. They can still mix in groups of up to six.

And Tbilisi be fair I would still be fine with Dd seeing her boyfriend regardless. We can't expect teens to out their lives in hold indefinitely can we?

I can't really believe that it's okay for 18y Dd to be denied seeing her boyfriend for weeks and months on end.

We allowed her to see him in our garden weeks into the the last lockdown as we felt the risks on her MH not being able to (at a time when she was going through some close family deaths on top of everything else being lost during lockdown) have his physical support was greater than the risk of Covid - and I say that as someone who is classed as clinically vulnerable.

They've got a cheek when young people have caused this spike in the first place.

Don't fall for the governments blame game.
Almost all sectors of society have been at the end of their blame culture finger so far.

Government incompetence is much more to blame than a bunch of teenagers - who, let's not forget, spent the first several months being told they don't get it, they don't get ill and if they do get it they're less likely to pass it on to other people.

Good for your teens op, I entirely agree

If vulnerable people shield, schools will close because there won’t be enough teachers*

If it's only shielded people then schools are more likely okay. It's when they start including the next group down that the big issues start.

Of our local schools we can stay open if shielded extremely vulnerable group has to return to wfh but we struggle to stay fully open if the vulnerable have to wfh too.

At my school 4 or 5 of us are clinically vulnerable but none ended up in the final shielded group.

If vulnerable people shield, schools will close because there won’t be enough teachers

That's up to them though, nobody forces anyone to shield.
Teachers can shield as much as anyone else, the gov will just employ non teachers to teach.
Pay while you train like The Armed Services.

@Devlesko

If vulnerable people shield, schools will close because there won’t be enough teachers

That's up to them though, nobody forces anyone to shield.
Teachers can shield as much as anyone else, the gov will just employ non teachers to teach.
Pay while you train like The Armed Services.

Ah yes, from that long queue of people waiting desperately to be teachers who just cannot get a teaching job at the moment