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?

This was for three weeks only to flatten the curve ..and we did it.
Now here we are and they and us still don’t have their lives back.

I wonder if someone forgot to send the memo to the virus?

@Dowser

That should have read..6 months later and still no end in sight. No wonder, everyone is angry and frustrated.

I think frustration is normal. I'm not sure why anyone would be angry at a virus. That's pointless. Even teenagers know better than that.

Yes, they could be grateful they are alive and many of them, in good health - unlike the thousands, who have died from this virus. Interrupted education is a blip, which can be made up in the rest of their lives! Look at the young people, who grew up in WW2 - especially those in concentration camps!

I met someone in China, who had no education for 10 years during the Cultural Revolution, because teachers were sent into the countryside to work. He was our tour guide - which is considered a good job in China! (They obviously have to speak good English and be able to get along with a wide variety of foreigners)

Are you kidding me? The interruption of eduction during the Cultural Revolution and WWII had profound effects on the children and teenagers concerned, esp the Cultural Revolution. My father did a lot of business in China over the 80s and 90s, and he worked mostly with much older engineers (his line of work) and a few very young ones because there was this "lost generation" with no engineering training. Same in other fields. Please do not trivialize this horrific disaster in Chinese history based on a sample size of one tour guide.

The impact of the CR on education was so massive that it is STILL being played out today, rippling down through the generations. Children whose own parents were the most affected by the educational disruption, have worse educational outcomes than children whose parents' education was less impacted by the CR, because the loss of skills has even affected parents' ability to help their own kids with their schoolwork!

By that token, older people who are alive in the UK ought to be grateful because they weren't murdered during the Cultural Revolution or the Holocaust.

Or perhaps we decide to be a bit more sensible and just leave stuff like that out entirely?

Well, exactly. If we are going to play the "But older generations tolerated much worse disasters than this, why can't the young people show a bit of resilience?" game, then is it OK for me to point that in previous generations, nobody expected a disease-free old age and to live into their 80s and 90s?

(And FWIW, I think it's quite right that we have higher standards for life expectency and freedom from infectious disease nowadays, but a bit of understanding goes both ways).

Isn't it occurring to them "as a group"? And across the world? So, in that sense, 'catch-up' isn't as much of of an issue when compared with their own cohort.

But it's not simply about comparisons. It's about actual experience, and we don't exist and compete solely with those born in the same school year as us. So for example if you're one of the people who would've got an apprenticeship had you not left school into a recession but missed out because the firm you'd have gone to went bust, there being other people in your school year in the same position doesn't mean you don't feel that impact.

It's really important to be clear that all the best data we have on this shows that the impact is long lived. It doesn't affect everyone, but if you have a contraction of opportunities for a group for a particular period at a key point in their lives, things getting better again doesn't retrospectively fix this.

It's really important to be clear that all the best data we have on this shows that the impact is long lived. It doesn't affect everyone, but if you have a contraction of opportunities for a group for a particular period at a key point in their lives, things getting better again doesn't retrospectively fix this.

I think it's also important to recognise that such contraction of opportunities, if any, won't be as marked as longer-term health impacts of COVID.

@TheClaws we have absolutely no way of knowing if that's the case.

@TheClaws

It's really important to be clear that all the best data we have on this shows that the impact is long lived. It doesn't affect everyone, but if you have a contraction of opportunities for a group for a particular period at a key point in their lives, things getting better again doesn't retrospectively fix this.

I think it's also important to recognise that such contraction of opportunities, if any, won't be as marked as longer-term health impacts of COVID.

That's complete guesswork on your part, so no, it isn't at all important to recognise.

@TheClaws

It's really important to be clear that all the best data we have on this shows that the impact is long lived. It doesn't affect everyone, but if you have a contraction of opportunities for a group for a particular period at a key point in their lives, things getting better again doesn't retrospectively fix this.

I think it's also important to recognise that such contraction of opportunities, if any, won't be as marked as longer-term health impacts of COVID.

But, for young people, will affect a great deal more of them.

That's complete guesswork on your part, so no, it isn't at all important to recognise.

What's complete guesswork? The long-term impacts of COVID? There are plenty of accounts - and ongoing studies - of the impacts of COVID. It isn't pretty. So, yes, it is important to recognise.

TheClaws you seem to have made a total religion of covid.

@TheClaws

That's complete guesswork on your part, so no, it isn't at all important to recognise.

What's complete guesswork? The long-term impacts of COVID? There are plenty of accounts - and ongoing studies - of the impacts of COVID. It isn't pretty. So, yes, it is important to recognise.

No, your assertion that it will be more marked than the impact on people leaving school or university into the pandemic economy. You have no idea whether this is true or not. You were guessing, and the existence of long term COVID impacts is not in itself evidence that those impacts will be more significant than any other factor.

An assertion you cannot back up not only isn't something that's important to recognise, but actually the exact opposite is true. It's important not to do what you did there.

@MaxNormal

TheClaws you seem to have made a total religion of covid.

Because I challenge certain posters?

@MaxNormal

TheClaws you seem to have made a total religion of covid.

Would you fling the same insult at, say, AlecTreveleyan or MadameBlobby?

Even our 6 year old had the same argument (admittedly with a tantrum)

It is stupid sadly

No, your assertion that it will be more marked than the impact on people leaving school or university into the pandemic economy. You have no idea whether this is true or not. You were guessing, and the existence of long term COVID impacts is not in itself evidence that those impacts will be more significant than any other factor.

An assertion you cannot back up not only isn't something that's important to recognise, but actually the exact opposite is true. It's important not to do what you did there.

That's garble. The same could be said for you.

@TheClaws

No, your assertion that it will be more marked than the impact on people leaving school or university into the pandemic economy. You have no idea whether this is true or not. You were guessing, and the existence of long term COVID impacts is not in itself evidence that those impacts will be more significant than any other factor.

An assertion you cannot back up not only isn't something that's important to recognise, but actually the exact opposite is true. It's important not to do what you did there.

That's garble. The same could be said for you.

No it couldn't, for the simple reason that I'm not making an assumption about which of the two identified problems is going to be more significant. The only one making that error is you. My whole point is that we can't.

@VanGoghsDog

This was for three weeks only to flatten the curve ..and we did it. Now here we are and they and us still don’t have their lives back.

I wonder if someone forgot to send the memo to the virus?

Obviously the virus was going anywhere, but it WAS sold as a short lockdown, which then turned into 'some people are still dying, extend it!!!' public pressure from people who seemed to think that it was to eradicate it.

Thing is, I do think the way forward at this stage would be short lockdowns on a regular basis. Meaning say, a month off, then 2 weeks. I think people would be more likely to listen to that and in theory it should leep numbers stable/low. BUT, the public would not believe it was actually going to be 2 weeks after last time, so many would likely 'rebel'. The adherence to the first lockdown, in my area anyway seemed almost 100%. If it had been short, the public would still have faith. But it wasn't, theres been totally nonsensical advice at times, the rules even contradict each other in parts, so..not sure what to do now. I am following of course but I do see why people are getting pissed off and I am annoyed that faith in the government is at an all time low seemingly (and through their own actions) so not many take them seriously now.

*Obviously the virus wasn't going anywhere

of course..