If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News6 mins ago
Led By "The Science"?
Would you be happy to go along with this discriminatory idea?
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It doesn't mean they are more vulnerable either though does it ? If you look at the statistics, most if not all deaths of over 70 year olds were of patients with underlying conditions ( including obesity). A healthy 70 year old - and I know plenty who walk, bike, even horse ride regularly - probably has a better chance of surviving the virus than a 20 stone 40 year old that smokes. This is why an age limit is ridiculous.
No it doesn’t. But people over 70 are more likely to have underlying conditions.
If you look at the figures, it’s men in general who are the most vulnerable and who are more likely to die:
https:/
Maybe men should be the ones being shielded?
(Should get some interesting replies)
If you look at the figures, it’s men in general who are the most vulnerable and who are more likely to die:
https:/
Maybe men should be the ones being shielded?
(Should get some interesting replies)
//You could argue the current lockdown discriminates on disability grounds in that tighter measures (shielding) apply to those with diabetes, heart problems, dementia, etc.//
We need to me a bit careful between "advice" and legislation. There is nothing in the legislation which differentiates between any group. The "do not leave home without a reasonable excuse" section applies to everybody. However, vulnerable groups (which includes the over 70s) have been advised to take extra precautions.
It is not clear from the Grauniad article what is being proposed. It mentions "beefing up protection" (whatever that might mean) for the over 70s and other vulnerable groups. It then goes on to mention a number of options that are being discussed. They add to the number of "cigarette packet" ideas that have been discussed.
Over 70s are not any more susceptible to contracting the virus. They are more likely to suffer serious symptoms or die if they do. Similarly they are no more likely to pass it on to anybody else. The idea of the "lockdown" is to slow the spread of the disease and so avoid the NHS being overwhelmed. That has, apparently, been achieved. The "Nightingale" hospitals in London and Birmingham are being mothballed (although for some reason one in the North-East is about to be commissioned).
My view is that if (say) the current legislation (S6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus)) regulations are eased for those under 70 but maintained for those over that age there will be widespread ructions. As I have said before, the country is going to have to learn to live with the virus and not labour under the misapprehension that it can be contained. Part of that learning is not to discriminate against people simply on the basis of their age.
We need to me a bit careful between "advice" and legislation. There is nothing in the legislation which differentiates between any group. The "do not leave home without a reasonable excuse" section applies to everybody. However, vulnerable groups (which includes the over 70s) have been advised to take extra precautions.
It is not clear from the Grauniad article what is being proposed. It mentions "beefing up protection" (whatever that might mean) for the over 70s and other vulnerable groups. It then goes on to mention a number of options that are being discussed. They add to the number of "cigarette packet" ideas that have been discussed.
Over 70s are not any more susceptible to contracting the virus. They are more likely to suffer serious symptoms or die if they do. Similarly they are no more likely to pass it on to anybody else. The idea of the "lockdown" is to slow the spread of the disease and so avoid the NHS being overwhelmed. That has, apparently, been achieved. The "Nightingale" hospitals in London and Birmingham are being mothballed (although for some reason one in the North-East is about to be commissioned).
My view is that if (say) the current legislation (S6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus)) regulations are eased for those under 70 but maintained for those over that age there will be widespread ructions. As I have said before, the country is going to have to learn to live with the virus and not labour under the misapprehension that it can be contained. Part of that learning is not to discriminate against people simply on the basis of their age.
‘ Over 70s are not any more susceptible to contracting the virus’
That’s not proven, and in fact may be completely wrong:
https:/
That’s not proven, and in fact may be completely wrong:
https:/
That article seems to concentrate on the body's reaction once the virus has invaded, Zacs. I accept that age affects that reaction (though I don't believe anybody currently believes older people are likely to see less severe symptoms than the young). The lockdown is aimed at preventing spread and that is not age-dependent. What happens after the spread has occurred is a different matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |