Led By "The Science"?

[diddlydo]

Would you be happy to go along with this discriminatory idea?
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/05/longer-lockdown-for-over-70s-would-allow-fewer-restrictions-for-rest-of-uk-scientists-suggest

[Zacs-Master]

True, NJ. But the fact remains, people over 70 are more likely to be in ill health and therefore more vulnerable.

[Theland]

Yes I would if it has serious science behind it, but cant see it happening.

[jim360]

It's very difficult to argue that it's not time that we started taking responsibility for ourselves when, by definition, that can't be the focus on a pandemic. The decisions we make can profoundly impact the health of others, no matter the precautions they take.

I would agree that the focus on over 70s seems a bit too arbitrary -- there is an increased mortality rate right down to people over 60, even.

[jim360]

Sorry, that first sentence came out awfully. Hopefully if you remove the "not" before "time" it says what I want it to say. But we can't think in a health crisis just about ourselves.

[teacake44]

Had they already proved in the past weeks that the vulnerable and older, had been shielded, and care homes had suffered few deaths , then yes, but this is not the case.

[New Judge]

The concern for others is obviously pertinent, Jim. But if we're discussing infection rates, it doesn't really matter. Once somebody has it, they have it. In fact, if their symptoms are more severe they are less likely to be out and about and so less likely to infect anybody else. I think the increased risk because of vulnerability (whether due to age or anything else) is a risk that individuals must assess for themselves because, by and large, they will be the ones on the receiving end of any bad outcomes.

[NickorWan]

The measure wouldn’t just protect the over 70s, but would help keep the number who need hospital treatment down, as those over 70 are more likely to need it.

I heard a doctor on the radio a couple of weeks ago saying that no matter how much activity a 70 year old does, their immune system is still 70 years old, and therefore compromised.

All that said, I think people should be given the chance to make their own choices until it is proven that stricter measures are necessary.

[woofgang]

I STILL don't see how making over 70's stay home is enforceable. They can advise it, as they do now but not enforce.

[jim360]

Unfortunately, NJ, the flaw in that reasoning is that asymptomatic people, or at least those with only a minimal response to the disease, could also be spreading it.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article

[NickorWan]

I don't think the majority of over 70s would need the measure enforcing. I suspect more would stay in if told to, than would if just advised to.

[woofgang]

I suspect the opposite. Treat most over 70's like adults, offer advice and explain the reasoning and they may well agree and comply if the feel that its right for them. Start treating them like children and "ordering" them and see what happens!

Unless everyone is required to carry proof of age and show it as often as required, I honestly don't see how its enforceable anyway.....and what will police do to oldies who refuse to show proof or go home? arrest them en masse? remember those oldies are the teens of the 1960's!

[mushroom25]

//what will police do to oldies who refuse to show proof or go home? arrest them en masse? //

the police are there to enforce the law, not enforce the whim of cabinet ministers. by design or omission, there are no qualifying criteria (age, race, weight, etc) in any of the provisions of the legislation.

[woofgang]

currently yes mushroom but the suggestion in the OP's question, and in Nickorwan's post is that o'70's will be REQUIRED to stay at home, hence my response.

[mushroom25]

// o'70's will be REQUIRED to stay at home //

to do that will require a change in the law. the "Edinburgh" Proposal (in the OP) doesn't appear to be proposing anything as formal as that.

[NickorWan]

If they were being told to stay at home for their own good, then I would agree with you, woofgang, but if they were being told to stay at home to help prevent the NHS being overloaded I wouldn't.

[woofgang]

mushroom how can advice be discriminatory?

[mushroom25]

// mushroom how can advice be discriminatory? //

I don't remember saying that? my point is that no-one - whether fat, old, whatever - can be forced to be shielded without a change in the law. as I understand it, there are no plans to change the law.

[pixie374]

I don't see it as discriminatory... it seems to protect those who need it most. Over 70s, vulnerable people, we also know BAME and men are more at risk. I don't think protection for those who need it most is discriminatory... just facts.

[jim360]

It's probably a matter of interpretation. Sensible people will recognise that the advice is being targeted at the older people for sound and honest reasons. Entitled little so-and-so's will focus on the "but my friend is 69 and THEY can get a haircut!!" angle.

[naomi24]

I know older people who are horrified at the prospect of lengthier restrictions. They know they're in their twilight years anyway and feel they don’t have the time to waste. They would rather take their chances and live their lives while they can.