[quote DisgruntledGuineaPig]@Inkpaperstars - who do you think the lockdown is for then if not the older people?
If we all had the response to covid of the 18-25 year olds, that death rate and hospital admissions - we wouldn't even bother giving it an exciting name, let alone do any sort of handwashing campaign or social distancing. "Ooh, theres a nasty flu doing the rounds this year" would be as far as it went.
Restrictions don't benefit them. They benefit older people who have a very different response to the virus.
Yet young people are the ones who's lives have been the most negatively effected.
We are asking them to give up the most for the least personal benefit. [/quote]
I agree that if we all had the response of 18-25 year olds we wouldn't be taking many measures at all. Of course some get very sick, as they do with lots of things, and we still don't know the long term effects of even mild or asymptomatic infection (this virus has shown some unprecedented and extreme features). But it would be totally manageable in the short term so you're right of course.
But we don't all have that response, and the fact that people of other ages, not just elderly, respond differently has an impact on younger people. The teaching profession, the NHS, the utility suppliers, the armed forces, medical and academic research, the administration of local government, retail, pretty much every business and service you can think of....these are not just staffed by people aged 18-25. Although restrictions are causing problems, the natural peak of infection created by exponential growth will bring those things to a halt. The places young people want to go won't be open anyway. Shops and clubs were closing before lockdown even started...too little footfall and the need to protect their staff.
Even a small minority of people aged 30-55 (let alone older) getting very sick all at once becomes an overwhelming number, add in again the numbers who are just sick enough to be absent from work or being a consumer, and add in again the numbers too afraid to go out or who are staying home to protect vulnerable household members. That is not even considering the workplaces who may say they don't want people coming in if they suspect they are unwell, and many will take that approach to protect staff and encourage customers.
In the absence of society even trying to control the virus, why should NHS staff even go to work? The NHS staff in Liverpool who are reportedly upset at these scenes...are they expected to continue to struggle while others throw up their hands?
I think you are underestimating the impact of the scenes we would witness during a natural peak too. People will not go out and work or take part in society when they see all that, and know that even if they crash their car there will be no emergency help.
The elderly are just a small part of the equation, and actually it is many of them I feel most sorry for. They are often still in good health but could lose their last good years to lockdown, and even those who want to take risks are being told they can't because it will overwhelm the NHS. Not that the risks before them are much of a choice. Their losses and sacrifices in this are very sad.
I think a lot of younger people actually consider themselves lucky to be less at risk and want to know how they can help. They recognise that they hopefully have plenty of time ahead of them. Young people in my family are not complaining, because they are caring and responsible. They can also see that the long term economic and social effects of letting the virus rise to a natural peak will do them no favours. Haven't even mentioned that these older people are their family and friends.
Sorry this is so long. It should to some extent go without saying, but obviously it doesn't. I don't think it is at all clear that younger people are giving up the most for the least benefit if you look at the bigger picture.