But what about the Bank Holiday second spike????

Agree with that. If you live with a shielding person you should have been given more support to shield with them. Instead we spent the money shielding 20 year olds.

 

We can believe what we want, we can believe who we want, but we all should believe that this government has got to go!

 

Seriously have no idea how the Spanish government have got anyway with it. Imagine the uproar if that had happened here. I think this thread explains it very well.

 

Another way to look is according to Wiki Barnsley Town has a population est at circa 91k. So 2 out of 3 people in Barnsley dead.

 

So anyone who has the temerity not to share your view is now an extremist. Tells me all I need to know about you.

 

Give us your plan then.

how are you going to protect the most vulnerable whilst allowing everyone else to do as they please?

and is that everyone? Where are you drawing the line? Over 50, 60, 70?

so we isolate and can’t see our grandchildren whilst all the young folk go to the pubs and shag about?

Do all the 20- 30yr olds have to suddenly find somewhere to live because they can’t stay in their parents homes if they’re isolating.

how’s it work?

 

To be fair, as sad and upsetting as it is, if someone is in one of the most at risk groups they probably shouldn't be seeing their grandkids until there's a vaccine regardless of what nonsense lockdown advice the government have issued

 

I don’t get why you don’t get it. If you live with an at risk person, or you provide specific close contact care for such an individual, you have to behave like an at risk person yourself. All that money currently being channeled to healthy people on furlough should be aimed at helping that population.

If you’re not in an at risk category and don’t live with someone who is, then crack on - on the proviso that clearly you can’t have exposure to at risk people.

I don’t get why people think that’s difficult. And as to your question Donny - yes, that’s exactly what you have to do, but they won’t just be going to pubs and shagging about will they, they’ll alSo be working to pay taxes to pay for your pension and healthcare.

I get this is unfortunate and might seem unfair to you but why should those not at risk suffer more than is necessary just because certain people are more at risk?

 

By the way thanks for confirming my point about the fundamental selfishness of the lockdown lobby. ‘If I can’t then no one else should be able to’.

 

I wasn’t talking about the current ‘at risk’ groups though.

I was responding to the idea that ‘young people should be allowed to do what they like whilst the old and or vulnerable should be locked away’.

 

Pfft.

 

not at all; I’m simply trying to prove that your wanting to give unfettered freedom to some (yourself) isn’t actually feasible.

 

Where are you drawing the ‘at risk’ line?
If you can’t answer questions in multiple parts I’m happy to do one point at a time

 

I’m not the CMO and I don’t have all the data but the below would seem to indicate that 60 isn’t a bad place to draw the line (I don’t have up to date data) . Plus obviously everyone under that age with co-morbidities and other risk factors (effectively the current shielded and Tier 2 populations)

 

What about those who live with people who work in the care sector?

 

What if the under 60 is 58 with no underlying health conditions but is black and obese?

 

As I said those who provide close contact care for anyone in the at risk population have to be subject to lockdown; logic would dictate that that would extend to people who live with that population. It’s obvious that entire households have to fall into the ‘in’ or ‘out’ category, you clearly can’t have a mixed household.

 

Left to individual’s discretion. Those people outside formal risk categories but believing they have ‘softer’ risk factors have option to effectively opt in to shielding and associated State support for that population.

 

Isn't obesity an health condition?

 

But how do you legislate for that?
You e suggested that financial help be restricted to only those ‘at risk’, are you now suggesting that we can opt in to being ‘at risk’?

Can I choose to be at risk Monday to Friday so I don’t have to go to work, but not on a weekend so I can see the grandkids?
How’s that get policed?