Riots against lockdown in Europe

[Downriver]

The scenes of young people burning down a COVID testing facility in the Netherlands and burning the Danish PM at a stake in protest against lockdown have really shaken me. Would it happen here? Who is organising this? Fascists? Sometimes I read comments against lockdown on here and I think such a mood is being primed.

Tbh I'll be rioting soon if we don't reopen schools and let the under 80s get on with life ..

@MrPickles73

Tbh I'll be rioting soon if we don't reopen schools and let the under 80s get on with life

Yeah, go ahead. Don't forget to then join the squadron blaming the government when it all goes pear shaped

Im not surprised the Dutch are not normally the rioting kind but quite honestly im surprised it hasnt happened more often anywhere in Europe.You cant keep a free people locked down for best part of a year,stop them socialising, seeing family and friends,stop them doing the nornal everyday things we take for granted,destroy peoples jobs and businesess etc and expect them to keep putting up with it,

As the days lengthen and spring and summer come along in Northern Europe and if they dont lift lockdowns even in a limited way it will happen more,People wont put up with this existance and i dont blame them.We should all be prepared to challenge this lockdown situation and the need for them.Yes the virus is serious and it kills people but we cant live the rest of our lives in a state of lockdown,we will not get zero covid,virus is going nowhere,we have to learn to live with it,Kids are not being educated,jobs are being destroyed,businesses ruined,financially all economies are messed up,Other illnesses kill people but we dont go to such extreme lengths to stop them.For instance smoking kills but cigarettes are stiill allowed to be manufactured.Life is a risk and you cant avoid that.

Average life expectancy in UK is 82. Average age of COVID victim in UK is 81 for men and 83 for women. My parents are in their mid 80s. Of course I don't want them to die but I also don't want my children to be indebted for life, have mental health issues and poorly educated because we all stayed home and saved lives for 2 years. There needs to be s balance of risk and reward for all actions.

Someonetookmyname

“Surely you can see the unfairness of a 20 ye old dying before an 80 year old?”

Surely you can see that depends on the 20 year old and the 80 year old in question?
Some 20 year olds may live for 80 more years but do nothing beneficial to anyone. Some 80 year olds may live another healthy and productive 20 years and do a great deal of good.
It’s really not so black and white.

@Someonetookmyname

You didn't answer her question.

Would you save a 20 year old drug dealer or an 80 year old like @DenisetheMenace 's parents?

About life and future health expectancies - there was a lady on local news tonight, naturally upset because her mum had died and saying that she "had a good decade left in her" though was sadly suffering from early onset dementia

The mum was 93

Just saying...

Victoriacres

Really ? In my experience they consider a whole range of different variables.“

Hope so. Mum has no conditions, ideal weight, vegetarian of 40 year’s standing, takes no medications whatsoever, hell she even has all of her own teeth with no fillings!

That said, she had her first vaccination yesterday morning so hopefully no longer an issue.

@DenisetheMenace and @trulydelicious

To me the idea of choosing who gets to live on the basis of how they have benefitted society, or their moral worth, is very dangerous.

So yes, I believe a 20 year old drug dealer (gasps, how awful sure no one on here has ever tried drugs before) should be prioritised above a lovely 80 year old.

One - doctors shouldn’t be in a position to choose who is more of a benefit to society than others. For their sake and ours.

Two - it costs more to keep older people alive then younger ones. The NHS is forced to take age into account all the time.

Before someone twists my words - I believe every life is worth fighting for. And of course I would want my elderly loved ones to be saved.

But to answer your point - yes it is fair for a 20 year old drug dealer (gasps again) to be saved over a lovely 80 year old. Because the 80 year old has had a long life already.

Puzzledandpissedoff

About life and future health expectancies - there was a lady on local news tonight, naturally upset because her mum had died and saying that she "had a good decade left in her" though was sadly suffering from early onset dementia

The mum was 93

Just saying...“

Wasn’t that the PM Programme with Evan Davies? I heard that story too.
If not, similar report.
Plus the report of a 50 year old mum of 21 and 14 year old sons. She had no health conditions. She died in November.

This evil disease doesn’t always discriminate. Could be any of us. Just saying .....

Someonetookmyname

@DenisetheMenace and @trulydelicious

To me the idea of choosing who gets to live on the basis of how they have benefitted society, or their moral worth, is very dangerous.”

Why? No less arbitrary.

*To me the idea of choosing who gets to live on the basis of how they have benefitted society, or their moral worth, is very dangerous

Why? No less arbitrary*

It’s not arbitrary it’s logical. Nhs has limited resources. Older people cost a lot more to keep alive.

If both the 80 yr old and 20 yr old were fighting for their life, and you have one oxygen tank, the 20 year old is more likely to pull through and prevent the equipment being wasted.

It’s not pleasant to think this way and ideally no one would die until they are ready. But life isn’t like this and the nhs already factors in age when decide who to treat.

[quote Someonetookmyname]**@DenisetheMenace* and @trulydelicious*

To me the idea of choosing who gets to live on the basis of how they have benefitted society, or their moral worth, is very dangerous.

So yes, I believe a 20 year old drug dealer (gasps, how awful sure no one on here has ever tried drugs before) should be prioritised above a lovely 80 year old.

One - doctors shouldn’t be in a position to choose who is more of a benefit to society than others. For their sake and ours.

Two - it costs more to keep older people alive then younger ones. The NHS is forced to take age into account all the time.

Before someone twists my words - I believe every life is worth fighting for. And of course I would want my elderly loved ones to be saved.

But to answer your point - yes it is fair for a 20 year old drug dealer (gasps again) to be saved over a lovely 80 year old. Because the 80 year old has had a long life already.[/quote]
The problem is, the people making the decisions (as to who gets oxygen for example) don’t know the ins and outs of someone’s personal life. Their achievements aren’t taken in to account.

There won’t be time to weigh up a positive and negative contribution list to society, so they will go off who they think will have the best chance of surviving. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out how in general it will go.

Could be any of us. Just saying ....

I'm aware of that, DenisetheMenace, but it's not what I was saying

I was referring to "another 10 years" and "early onset dementia" ... in a 93 years old?

@Someonetookmyname

I can't agree with you.

Yes, I know that as @TableFlowerss says, in practice, doctors would save the 20 year old most likely

But if I think about what is fair and who I would like to survive (and be amongst all of us):

.the 80 year old has already contributed to society, has paid for her NHS treatment in advance through taxes, and may have knowledge and experience valuable to society. If you like, she has earned the years that she has left

.the 20 year old perhaps will continue to break the law, will engage in more serious criminal activity (e.g. murder). Also prisons and the judiciary system are a huge cost to the taxpayer (which this youngster most probably has not contributed to at all)

It's a rather crude and extreme example, I know. But it illustrates that it's not always the young who trump the old in my view

Any which was you look at this, it's the poisoned chalice.

Sweden has back tracked from their original plan of herd immunity. It seems that people in countries the world over have expressed dissatisfaction & disagreement about the ways the pandemic has been handled, no matter the stance taken by their governments. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Jacinta Ardern had (to my mind) probably the best handle on it but took a very different & strategic approach from the outset. She was criticised then for the rigidity of rules and again she is under criticism for slow vaccine role out.

There are no winners in this. Pitting demographics of society against each other only causes division & fracture. Who decides & on what benchmark is one persons or 1 section of society more important, more valuable than another?

I'm very concerned about numerous aspects of the UK gov's approach to the pandemic but even a year in, there is still much to learn. It's unchartered territory. Why are some apparently healthy people so susceptible and how is the mutation process making the infection rate so much higher? Will the virus potentially affect ever younger people too if it continues to mutate?

In fact, this is very much my concern as the parent of a CEV child & 2 others who are just vulnerable, who won't be eligible for the vaccine due to their ages,

I am as concerned for their social/emotional well-being too but I don't know how to help on all fronts.

Nor does it negate the fact I am as worried about my parents, MIL & other older generations who should have numerous years of life left to enjoy.

Every which way it seems the cost is too high - damned if we do & damned if we don't.

Good
I'm not a rioting kind but enough is enough now. Sacrificing a whole generation of children and young people is not on. For any reason.

I've complied and every death is tragic. Hoever once this vaccine is rolled out I hope less people comply. Otherwise what is the point? We cannot live like this forever. Something has to give and a balance has to be struck.

Part of the problem is that we are terrible at accepting death. And yes I have lost loved ones and it's awful. But we are in huge denial.

One of the reasons I left nursing was because I was dismayed at nursing an elderly lady in ITU who had sepsis and no chance of survival but her final weeks were undignified and barbaric with everything being done to keep her alive. Lines, wound dressings, bed sores, diarrhoea, suction.

The reality is that we are trying to preserve life at all costs. Even the cost of children.

Orientalknife I agree

I agree too

@orientalknife

Sacrificing a whole generation of children and young people is not on

You sound overly dramatic. No one is being 'sacrificed' (except those who actually die because of the recklessness of others)

I was dismayed at nursing an elderly lady in ITU

I understand this. But there's a difference between the probable ordeal you are describing and not providing medical care to someone just because they are 'old'

We also need to remember that the data is not trustworthy, the PCR test is flawed and is proven to given false positives. Many people who have died of other causes have been registered as dying 'with' covid.

'People who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test', that's the line being used so they could have been run over by a bus, died of heart attack but covid is put as the cause. The positive test could have been a false positive in the first place or the person could have been a symptomatic. No wonder we have the highest death rate in the world, The data is wrong in first the place. And please research how DNR's were placed on many older people in hospitals and care homes without consultations/permission from family members, its scandalous. Age UK have been campaigning about this since last year...

Statement from Age UK re DNR's. Why wasn't this headline news?

Age UK response to DNR forms during Covid-19 crisis
Published on 07 April 2020 11:48 AM

OLDER PEOPLE BEING PRESSURISED INTO SIGNING DO NOT ATTEMPT CPR FORMS - JOINT STATEMENT FROM AGE SECTOR ORGANISATIONS

We are seeing shocking examples where blanket decisions seem to be being made about the care and treatment options that will be available to older and vulnerable people, who have felt pressurised into signing Do Not Attempt CPR forms.

Alongside this, many of the people affected have experienced fear and anxiety, and feel that their lives and wishes do not matter. This is shameful and unacceptable.

Difficult and painful decisions will need to be made in the weeks ahead, but these must be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the risks and benefits, and people’s own wishes, through honest discussions between patients, doctors and families. Whether or not to sign a DNA-CPR form is an individual’s decision, and they have a right to make that decision without feeling pressurised.

We do not underestimate the significant pressures being faced by all staff working across our health and social care sectors at this difficult time, but it is crucial that we continue to protect people’s fundamental human rights. It would be completely unacceptable to abandon these rights in favour of taking blanket, discriminatory decisions.

It is also crucial that governments and health services across our four nations carefully consider the ways they can provide stronger leadership and guidance – to ensure that people’s rights are upheld and communication with vulnerable people is handled in a far more sensitive way to avoid further worry and upset as we navigate the difficult path ahead of us.

Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director Age UK

Deborah Alsina, Chief Executive Independent Age

Jane Ashcroft, Chief Executive Anchor Hanover

Helena Herklots, Older People’s Commissioner in Wales

Victoria Lloyd, Chief Executive Age Cymru

Eddie Lynch, Commissioner for Older People in Northern Ireland

Donald Macaskill, Chief Executive, Scottish Care

Linda Robinson, Chief Executive Age Northern Ireland

Brian Sloan, Chief Executive Age Scotland

@Homegirl1

Ok...You are giving out vibes of someone who's being indoctrinated and/or reading too much sleazy media. Watch out. You are parrotting too much nonsense.

You still haven't answered my previous question of who you think is really behind the World Economic Forum/ WHO/ The Great Reset crowd. I'm curious

@Homegirl1

Age UK response to DNR forms during Covid-19 crisis

I would never think that someone pressured into signing a DNR is the right thing to do by the way

You sound overly dramatic. No one is being 'sacrificed' (except those who actually die because of the recklessness of others)

There is so much in this short group of words:

• it is not dramatic to worry about the health and wellbeing of children.

• The definition of sacrifice is "to give up (something valued) for the sake of other considerations." So children and healthy people are sacrificing. Sacrifice does not just mean the ultimate sacrifice of death. People are sacrificing their livelihoods, education, prospects, development - the list is long. To completely disregard and dismiss that doesn't really put you in the 'compassionate gang'

• You are placing the blame in the wrong places when you consistently talk about 'reckless people'. Take a look at where infections actually happen. It isn't at a one off rave in East London that the BBC would like you to believe, and it seems you do.