To think the govt has no right to tell me who I'm allowed to have in my home?

[HumanFemale1]

Anyone else feels the same? I just don't think this is OK. Govt making the rules of who I am allowed to have in my home or how many people I'm allowed to have in...

Especially when it's to keep a virus from spreading when the average death of a virus is higher than the life expectancy. But for any reason really. If the govt was making this rule for any other reason people would be horiffied.

strawberry33
Quit with the amateur dramatics. Nobody is talking about enforcing “right to die”. The options should be simple: if you don’t want to risk the virus, stay home. If you don’t mind the risk crack on. Very happy to protect the vulnerable but for the rest of us let’s just get on with normal life. Simple really.

You’re a selfish idiot.

Flyonawalk
Hear, hear! You are absolutely correct.

I do sometimes wonder how these pro Lockdowners think all this is going to be paid for.

Yes how very easy, except the fact that most of the people who died or are at risk of hospitalisation are the vulnerable. The diabetics, cardiovascular problems etc. Not everyone at risk is older. But as long as you are ok, of course you should be able to do as you please.

Genevieva
He does not give any recent single figure for the UK and indeed says that :
"The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients and other factors. "

www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf

As an overall level in young and healthy populations, the figure may indeed be quite low. But what he does not address is the issue of how healthy young Covid patients can spread the virus to other more vulnerable groups.

For Covid vs flu deaths, until September 2020 - Office of National Statistics:
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsduetocoronaviruscovid19comparedwithdeathsfrominfluenzaandpneumoniaenglandandwales/deathsoccurringbetween1januaryand31august2020#age-standardised-and-age-specific-rates-for-deaths-due-to-influenza-and-pneumonia-and-covid-19

This from The Times, (normally a government friend) is interesting:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/average-age-of-coronavirus-fatalities-is-82-pcwqrzdzz
Even by those measures, one in three covid patients admitted to intensive care in recent months were in their 40s or 50s. Not that old.

The issue of loss of custom for businesses etc is a very real concern. But it must SURELY be about negotiation and compensation (even if that means higher taxes for those lucky enough to have jobs) NOT about flouting of the rules that put more vulnerable people in danger (and ultimately cost the government/the NHS a lot more).

I've said before that I can't stand this government. I think they've handled all this very badly. But just to disobey their rules without thinking very carefully cannot be a good idea, unless people really are planning to kill off a lot of older and more vulnerable people.

@LG101

I’m fine if people don’t want to follow the rules, not wear masks, not socially distance or keeping seeing loads of people. However you then can’t have access to doctors / a&e / fire / police etc and you better not be in the supermarket with people that don’t think like you or use a check out (self check out only).

You can’t have your cake and eat it.

It’s not just about death rates it’s overwhelming of our services / long term affects on people / other people other than yourself.

It does make me quite angry when people are so self centred or stupid?

Actually I think people should be able to have their cake and eat it!

I'm sick of these self righteous responses. I think it's equally fundamental to society that we provide healthcare to everyone. It's part of the whole thing with society. If you try to say some aren't worthy of healthcare I don't think that makes you any better than those who flout the rules.

@MarieInternette

strawberry33 Quit with the amateur dramatics. Nobody is talking about enforcing “right to die”. The options should be simple: if you don’t want to risk the virus, stay home. If you don’t mind the risk crack on. Very happy to protect the vulnerable but for the rest of us let’s just get on with normal life. Simple really.

The options aren't that simple and here's why.

That is your choice. However , if you doing as you like , cracking on, infects someone who has gone to the shop, and you put them at risk or someone in their life who is vulnerable , you have made that choice for them .

It's not all about you.

Wolfff

You’re going to have to give a bit more than that. Otherwise I’m going to conclude that it is, in fact, you who is the idiot.

Try to string a few words together and maybe you can join the debate.

@TottyonTyne

The op has posted a reasonable and frankly important topic for debate. Yet other rather self important posters feel the need to belittle and shut the debate down. Why???

Perhaps because it’s already been debated at great length, and people are just sick to the back teeth of repeating themselves for the benefit of folk who don’t seem to have been paying attention for the last 8 months.

They don't have to repeat themselves though. They can choose not to comment.

@MarieInternette

florascotia2 Yep. I do understand statistics. Thank you for trying to be patronising.

I’ll tell you this much. My parents, along with many other elderly people I know who are in their eighties, would prefer to see young people, starting out on their lives, to be able to live and experience life whilst they’re young, have a career, be able to afford to buy a house etc. All the things that they had. They would not like to see young people’s lives and life options inhibited like they will be for the future generations just so they can have another couple of years. I don’t know of any elderly person in my life who would prefer this as an option.

Now who’s being selfish?

Stop hiding behind the elderly. What about all the young and middle-aged people who are vulnerable? Do they not have the right to live a full life? Or is your social life worth their deaths or shortened lifespan too?

You can't know many elderly people, by the way, because all those I know are keen to stay alive. None of them have the "Oh well, that's fine, I'll die now then so that you don't have to stay in for a while" attitude you claim.

In terms of the comparison with influenza it is comparing like with like. Similarly, influenza has a higher mortality rate than the average 0.1% in frail and vulnerable people.

It is markedly higher than the influenza average - perhaps double. But, and it is an important but, it does not have an exceptionally high mortality rate like HIV, Ebola, Rabies, smallpox or even hantaviruses (which may have been responsible for the sweating sickness that haunted Tudor England). It is more easily transmitted than any of those, as influenza is, but its mortality rate is much closer to influenza. This means that a special response was and is needed, but that response needs to be measured against the offset that it brings. Clearly lockdowns have a very high offset cost in terms of increased deaths and illness from other causes, increased stillbirth rates, increased incidents of domestic violence and murder of vulnerable women, destruction of businesses and the economy generally.

The first lock down was introduce without the normal parliamentary scrutiny and without any kind of projection of the costs. The costs were also not reviewed afterwards, so there was no ability for MPs to have an informed discussion ahead of this new lockdown. The result is bad law and worse outcomes for the public because we are the blind being lead by the blind.

I have not been patronising. I simply reflected on the information you quoted.
My comments have deliberately not been just about the elderly. They have remarked upon other vulnerable groups - including, just for example, the fact that at the moment it is people in their 40s and 50s who occupy one in three intensive care beds in NHS England.

I agree that the over 60s in the UK have been an incredibly fortunate generation. But many of the great advantages that they enjoyed - free university, cheaplocal authority housing for rent etc etc - have been swept away by 1980s/1990s governments that I did not vote for. The problems of jobs, housing etc faced - very sadly - by today's young people are real, but they are NOT all the fault of coronavirus.

How dare you comment on the number of elderly people I know? You simply have no idea. Nor do any of the older people I know have the ideas - a cariacture - that you attribute to them.

TibetanTerrier

I keep saying this but, for the record, one more time. Let those, young or old, who are vulnerable isolate. Protect them. Let the rest of us get on as normal.

Your analogy is a bit like the teacher who keeps the whole class in because 1 kid has been naughty.

If it’s because it’s going to get rid of this virus. It won’t. Hence us in second lockdown. And this is what will continue indefinitely until such time as herd immunity is reached or we get a viable vaccine. Is that really what you want?

What about those suffering from job losses, mental health problems, unaddressed medical problems. Do they not matter? And all for a virus that most of us don’t even know when we have it.

Excellent post from @Genevieva above at 20.50.

florascotia2

What are you on about? Who made any mention of the elderly people you know? I spoke of the people I know not you. How the fuck would I know about the elderly people you knew!!

If you’re going to try and flame me read what I said first. You can do that, can’t you?

@BrumBoo Arent they?

www.lancs.live/news/uk-world-news/man-fined-going-friends-house-19243957

@MercyBooth, someone's already tagged that and I've replied accordingly. Read the whe thread before jumping in with the one story you can collectively find and doesn't even prove a point in favour of your case.

OP, @HumanFemale1 The strength of feeling on here surely shows that your post highlighted important issues, and that we need to be aware of what is happening around us.

People aren't actually being asked/told to stay in to save the vulnerable/old, they are protecting the NHS during flu season.

No matter how selfish anyone is or isn't, let's not pretend that lockdown is doing anything to make the virus go away. It isnt.

The nightingale hospitals weren't used because they don't have enough staff to staff them and luckily our lockdown happened a few weeks before Italy's in terms of virus progression.

Do as you wish, most people are, but don't expect decent law abiding citizens to agree with you.

I'm one of the vulnerable, and really appreciate that most people at least understand why this is so important and are behaving accordingly. I don't appreciate that my life is worth less than your freedom to invite people into your house for a few weeks.

@MarieInternette You won't take the point, will you?

Those people who you say should hide away- why should they?
Why does your need to go out become more important than others?
How can you insist that whole swathes of the population stay at home so you can carry on doing what you want to?

You also seem to have totally missed all the cases of long Covid affecting previously healthy people in their 40s. Maybe take a look at this www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54793726

You think it can't happen to you? Think again, love.

If you did your bit and stayed at home a bit more, then everyone could go back to some kind of normality sooner.

PS. I've isolated for most of the past EIGHT MONTHS. You're complaining about 4 weeks?

And @MarieInternette My elderly mum has isolated since 23 march. Apart from medical appts she has not been anywhere. Nor has she had friends in to her house. I have seen her 3 times ( she's 350 miles away) for a couple of days each time.

So she's doing as you say.

BUT the longer you and your kind continue to circulate and the infection rate rises, the longer she will be stuck at home.

Is that what you are suggesting? Or should she hasten her death by going out?

jinglehellsbells

For fucks sake, it’s getting really tedious but I’ll try again. You say why do I think it’s ok that vast swathes of the population have to hide away. I’ll answer that when you tell me why you think it’s ok for the majority of the population to have to hide away for a virus with a minuscule fatality rate.

While you’re on, maybe you can explain why you think it’s ok to wreck the economy, casting millions into poverty (with all the implications that that involves for welfare, housing, mental health etc).

You are entitled to your opinion but in my view you are seriously misguided and you will not change my view with a few woke sound bites.

@MarieInternette

jinglehellsbells

For fucks sake, it’s getting really tedious but I’ll try again. You say why do I think it’s ok that vast swathes of the population have to hide away. I’ll answer that when you tell me why you think it’s ok for the majority of the population to have to hide away for a virus with a minuscule fatality rate.

While you’re on, maybe you can explain why you think it’s ok to wreck the economy, casting millions into poverty (with all the implications that that involves for welfare, housing, mental health etc).

You are entitled to your opinion but in my view you are seriously misguided and you will not change my view with a few woke sound bites.

No one is saying thats OK. It's not one or the other.