Imagine being 18-25 age group

We are one.

 

I’d rather have that than someone who wanted to hide, quivering in fright in their houses until the big misters take the bad thing away.

 

Seriously, have a word with yourself mate. Everyone, including old codgers have had to make sacrifices. It's been two months, that's all and you're having a rant about confinement.
I've not seen my grandkids in the flesh for 9 weeks and it's awful. We've had two holidays and two gigs cancelled already. If that's what it takes to see off this virus then fair enough. These restrictions are not the fault of us oldies so why are you blaming us? Direct your rant at the politicians. My two sons are around your age if 88 is your dob. They're both working and are scared to death of being asymptomatic and passing it on to someone else which includes me. I assume you're not close to your parents otherwise you wouldn't be spouting off like that.

 

Absolutely. The lack of empathy for their fellow humans is fcking disgraceful.

 

You can't get cancer by someone sneezing on you, you silly boy.

 

I can't work out whether you're a bit selfish and ignorant, thick or a WUM... but it is definitely one of the three.

 

I think it's all three to be honest.

 

We're going to have to cut through the rising intergenerational antagonism to pull ourselves up out of this mess. I'm not going to wade into the deconfinement side of the debate but I have been giving some thought to the financial aspects. On top of the debts and austerity they've already faced, the younger generations (at 49 I guess I can no longer count myself among their number) are going to be saddled with the responsibility of working to pay off a massive national debt and I totally understand given the risk profile of the virus how unfair and unreasonable that appears. Personally I think the government will need to look at ways to shift a fair share of the financial burden onto those older people who can afford it. People like me, frankly. In my opinion we need to look nationally and globally at effectively taxing capital. People always rail against the suggestion because they say they want to save money to pass onto their children but I'm not talking about 100% inheritance tax or anything as drastic as that. The French, for example, tax personal wealth in bands with various rates and thresholds and it seems to me to be a very practical solution. On top of that, tax breaks in the UK and elsewhere need to scaled right back. It's madness that a UK couple can put away £40k tax-free every year in ISAs. How is that level of state-endorsed tax avoidance justified? I can understand a few grand to encourage people to save but those kind of figures are way out of step with what is attainable for the average person. This is just the tip of iceberg I know and none of what I'm saying here precludes going after big businesses and making them pay their fair share, for example, but things are going to have to change and ways need to be found to distribute the costs fairly across society rather than just increase the load via income tax and the regressive VAT.

 

Great post

 

They started it, Sir!
Red Army - over 45 regiment.

 

I'll stick with official statistics and since this they will have risen further.

Who's calling out people who want to work? Not me. I'm happy for everyone who can socially distance to go back to work. I'd have been happier if we'd have done a full and proper lockdown over say 7 weeks though: that would have made the movement forward less restrictive.

 

Red Army.

 

I think there is a valid point, poorly expressed in this thread, that there are routes to easing the lockdown for low risk people *without* putting those at high risk in danger.

If you are high risk you strictly self isolate. You don't leave the house. You work from home if you can. If you can't work the government should subsidise you. If you are low risk but live with someone who is high risk then you should also self isolate under the same terms as above.

But if you are low risk and don't live with someone who is high risk then surely there could be some lesser degree of lockdown. If the only people who are then not self isolating are low risk *and* don't live or interact with someone high risk, then the risk to lives is dramatically lower and no one is compromised.

I'm not necessarily advocating this approach but I can't see that it isn't a valid train of thought. Wouldn't this be a potentially proportionate response, protecting the at risk, targeting resources to the highest risk to remain in isolation, yet offsetting some of the seismic economic impact?

That isn't writing off anyone. It's actually creating a sustainable method of allowing those in the highest risk to be protected.

 

Too right brother

 

This is my point however I am vile, unintelligent and a lovely person so peope don’t listen to me. Hopefully they take on board what you have to say

 

I think it’s more to do with the terms, insinuations and names you were using that made your comments vile tbh.

 

Cultist baby killer

 

Even if they are not dying, the young without health conditions are still requiring hospitalisation in a not insignificant amount of cases. This will overwhelm the NHS.

If you allow the virus to run wild through society, like what you're suggesting would do, it will not be safe for the vulnerable at any time to be out of the house, no shopping at all, no exercise, nothing.

Delivery drivers will all become carriers and pass it to every house they visit, even more so than they possibly are now.

It's a terrible idea. People will be further discriminated against for health conditions or age. An all or nothing approach is the only way to ensure the NHS doesn't get overwhelmed and make it safe for everyone to get what they need.

I don't know what the right answer is, but herd immunity, which is what you're advocating is still the stupidest ******* idea.

 

I think I've got one of their albums somewhere.