Over 70's self isolate?!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Jim Nevill 15 Mar 2020

It look like shortly over 70's will be 'asked' to self-isolate. wtf? Wouldn't it be more sensible for diabetics, the obese, those with heart conditions, asthma, etc to self isolate and forget the age thing? I'm 70 and lead 6a/6b at Westway twice weekly plus getting lots of other exercise, why the hell should I abide with generic  advice like this? Anyway, if stopped I'll say I'm 69

17
russellcampbell 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Well said. 

 Pyreneenemec 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Indeed, well said !

I went for a coffee the other day in my nearest, large town , Agen. During the time I was washing my hands, one guy came out of a cubicle and another had finished his wee, both left without washing their hands. If people cannot respect even the simplest of actions to tackle the virus.................................................

In reply to Jim Nevill:

I agree.  I was furious when I read this.  They are talking about isolating for 16 weeks. WTF, I'd rather catch the virus.  But at the same time I'm not supposed to panic buy.  Younger people are going stir crazy self isolating for 14 days.  How can this be a realistic proposal?

Al

Post edited at 10:25
7
 petemeads 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I really am 69, so theoretically not at risk anyway!

Why does isolation mean staying indoors? Surely walking/running/biking/soloing on Stanage (away from the popular end) is also potentially isolation. Will we be at risk of being rounded up by the authorities if found away from home? How would we be punished - solitary confinement?

In reply to petemeads:

The article I have read suggests self isolation is exactly that.  Staying indoors. I suspect they are leaking this to see how people respond.  It seems totally unrealistic and very unreasonable to me.

Al

1
 Dr.S at work 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Scotland’s CMO on radio 4 this morning made the distinction between self isolation - you are or could be infected - and what will be asked of over 70’s - which is to reduce social contacts dramatically - she said by 75%. In order to limit the chance of catching it in the first place. Differing reasons and degrees of isolation.

 Bob Kemp 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

The fact that this has been revealed via a leak to Peston is a disgrace. If it’s genuine policy it should be presented through official channels and discussed openly. I suspect this is testing the waters and may not actually be policy but it should still be part of a transparent discussion of options and the models they are based on. 

 elsewhere 15 Mar 2020
In reply to petemeads:

I think it is longer term social distancing to reduce risk.

It's not indoor self isolation to eliminate* risk of transmission if you have the symptoms.

*or limit risk to those you live with

 Angry old man 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Really bad news for those of us who over 70, who are in good health and get loads of regular exercise, climbing, walking and the gym etc. If this proposal is to protect me from getting it, it should be my personal decision to self isolate or not.

Naturally I would avoid contact with others as much as possible and take all possible precautions to avoid getting the virus, but locking myself indoors for four months would be very very hard, what are the symptoms of insanity??

Who is going to police this ? And what will be the consequences if caught out? Policing will be likely as successfull as stopping motorists from using mobiles, which we all know is a joke.

4
 HB1 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

> It look like shortly over 70's will be 'asked' to self-isolate. . .

                  . . . I'm shortly over 70 - just returned from Spain. OK I wasn't climbing at my best (nothing more more 6a+ this trip) but looking at our fellow passengers on the plane home we reckoned most of them would benefit more from isolation (and lack of pies) than us (snobby - I know it!)

1
 Coel Hellier 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Angry old man:

> Really bad news for those of us who over 70, who are in good health and get loads of regular exercise, climbing, walking and the gym etc. If this proposal is to protect me from getting it, it should be my personal decision to self isolate or not.

To a certain extent, yes, it should be your decision. But:

-- the government surely has to issue blanket, generic advice. What else can they do? And the data show that old people are far more likely to need hospitalisation.

-- while it's up to you what precautions you take, recognise that the projections are that there would likely not be a ICU bed available if you did get seriously ill. 

> Who is going to police this ? And what will be the consequences if caught out?

Death, on a crowded hospital corridor, with no-one attending to you because the nurses are all exhausted.   (At least for one interpretation of "caught out".)

2
 wbo2 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

My mother is over 70 and in generally good health except a dodgy back.  However without getting outside pretty frequently her back goes downhill quite rapidly and this is not a trivial thing to ask for. 

 Announcing this sort of stuff pretty randomly and without clear instructions is not very good.

Re. the argument 'Im not doing this, I'd prefer to catch it'.  If, as a result of your intransigence you do get it, should you be treated? But that's a separate argument.  Asking people deliberately to become inactive is a big call to make.

 brianjcooper 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Pyreneenemec:

> Indeed, well said !

> I went for a coffee the other day in my nearest, large town , Agen. During the time I was washing my hands, one guy came out of a cubicle and another had finished his wee, both left without washing their hands. If people cannot respect even the simplest of actions to tackle the virus.................................................

Sadly, I see this all the time when using public toilets. Lots of men, of all ages, seem to have missed or forgotten their 'potty training'.   

mick taylor 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Agreed.  UKC does not reflect the wider community (thankfully!).  Spoke with my mum yesterday, 77 with cancer (under control) and she had no intention of changing anything, and clearly none of her mates had.  She’s been popping on the bus into town every other day to buy 2 slices of tongue from the market and a vanilla slice.  She seemed really surprised when I suggested she may need to ‘hole up’.

 Timmd 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

[ A man with type 1 diabetes who is recovering from coronavirus has shared his experience, explaining that for him, the condition was “no different to normal flu-type symptoms”.  Andrew O’Dwyer developed the condition after he flew to Italy in February for a skiing trip.

Speaking to BBC News, he said: “The worst bit is the uncontrollable coughing. I’ve had worse flu, without a doubt – but I wouldn’t want to catch it again.”  Despite having type 1 diabetes, Andrew said having the virus was not “anything to worry about for me personally” and that he has not been overly concerned about his health. ]

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2020/mar/recovering-from-coronavirus-with-t...

> It look like shortly over 70's will be 'asked' to self-isolate. wtf? Wouldn't it be more sensible for diabetics, the obese, those with heart conditions, asthma, etc to self isolate and forget the age thing?

Why should I stop inside for 16 weeks as a type 1 diabetic?

Post edited at 12:06
5
Andy 1902 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Some of the replies remind me of those that thought Black Outs did not apply to themselves during the war. If the oldies have forgotten how to behave during a national crisis then shame on them.

22
 Coel Hellier 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Despite having type 1 diabetes, Andrew said having the virus was not “anything to worry about for me personally” and that he has not been overly concerned about his health.

Thing is, we don't really know.

It may be that 8-out-of-10 of those aged X with pre-existing condition Y will be fine, with nothing more than a week of flu-like illness, but for 2-out-of-10 in that category it'll be 3 weeks in ICU and/or death.   

And one doesn't know beforehand which of those you'll be.

 Timmd 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier: Yes indeed, I wasn't being wholly serious, more slightly tongue in cheek. 

Post edited at 12:35
1
In reply to Jim Nevill:

> It look like shortly over 70's will be 'asked' to self-isolate. 

Asked being the very important word here 

If you think you have health issues that may make you more vulnerable to the effects of this virus, then it is probably sensible to try to reduce your risk of catching it, by social distancing, in addition to good hand hygiene.

The arbitrary age of 70 is just a guideline; there are many other health issues to consider.

Given the need to reduce peak demand on the NHS (or face the prospect of denying treatment to those unlikely to survive, even with treatment), self isolating seems to me to be perfectly sensible. I'm doing it, and I'm nowhere near 70. I'm not locking myself in my house, though; I'm just limiting my social contact.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

> while it's up to you what precautions you take, recognise that the projections are that there would likely not be a ICU bed available if you did get seriously ill. 

Exactly. Look at what has been happening in Italy.

With demand exceeding available treatment resources, you have to start treatment triage, deciding who to give treatment to. And those people will be those most likely to survive. Those with underlying health conditions that reduce their chances of survival, even with treatment, are likely to be denied treatment. Triage protocols will have been formulated (most likely using those developed for SARS). These protocols will be deployed as necessary.

This is not an academic discussion; this is real clinical planning.

In reply to Jim Nevill:

How many MPs are over 70? Is this also a way of getting rid of the House of Lords? 

2
 marsbar 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

My parents are both in that age range.  My dad walks 4 miles a day, alone and I'm not inclined to think that is a bad thing.  I assume that he will continue to do so and as I understand it as long as he doesn't get within 2m of anyone it isnt particularly risky.  I think most days he doesn't see anyone anyhow.  

I can understand stopping people from going to supermarkets and garden centres and social activities, but I think solo outdoor time is probably healthy.

Cabin fever is a serious risk to mental health in some cases.

Post edited at 12:36
 Enty 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy 1902:

> Some of the replies remind me of those that thought Black Outs did not apply to themselves during the war. If the oldies have forgotten how to behave during a national crisis then shame on them.


Yes. Had a rather sobering phone call last night with a mate in Lombardy where 150 people have died in the last 48h.

E

 marsbar 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

So dad is ok to go for a walk then? 

In reply to marsbar:

> So dad is ok to go for a walk then? 

Yes. 'Social isolation' being the important concept. Keep away from potential aerosol or surface infection sources. Maintain good hand hygiene. Don't touch body openings or wounds with 'dirty' hands.

In reply to Jim Nevill:

I’m staggered by the degree of selfishness this and other threads like it in the bridge and chess worlds reveal.

It’s not all about you. Apart from spreading it to others, there aren’t going to be enough hospital beds. If you need one someone else won’t get it.

jcm

5
 wercat 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

You should just stay in with Covid and read the Metamorphoses

In reply to Jim Nevill:

One problem is that to date self isolation has been discussed and defined in the context of people with symptoms.  This is not unreasonable but asking healthy people over 70 to stick to those limitations until August seems to me to be unreasonable and unrealistic.  I do not agree with panic buying in principle but I would think that many over 70's will now be doing exactly that.

Al

Post edited at 13:05
1
Le Sapeur 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Why should I stop inside for 16 weeks as a type 1 diabetic?

Because the death rate amongst diabetics is 7.3%. 

 Timmd 15 Mar 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I’m staggered by the degree of selfishness this and other threads like it in the bridge and chess worlds reveal.

> It’s not all about you. Apart from spreading it to others, there aren’t going to be enough hospital beds. If you need one someone else won’t get it.

> jcm

The problem/crux may be that of balancing mental health with physical/wider health? Some of us can need a certain amount of social contact to stop from feeling glum. I fully appreciate that being very ill or dying, or having the same happen on a mass scale or to relatives, isn't helpful for mental health.

Post edited at 13:07
 Timmd 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Le Sapeur:

> Because the death rate amongst diabetics is 7.3%. 

I was being tongue in cheek, as evidenced by the winky smiley

It's 9.8 for people in their 70's so far apparently...

3
 Coel Hellier 15 Mar 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> So dad is ok to go for a walk then? 

I think there's a big difference between someone living in an inner-city flat, where "going for a walk" would involve touching things that others would touch, and likely close contact with others, and someone who lives in a wild part of Northumberland, where "going for a walk" involves walking past some sheep and seeing a dog-walker in the distance.

If people can do outdoors stuff that doesn't involve much contact with others, then yes, they should. 

 Dr.S at work 15 Mar 2020
In reply to marsbar:

I think so, but I’m a Vet not a Medic!

 wercat 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

Our headmaster, one of whose brothers died in a Japanese prisoner of war camp, always said that in hard times we should contemplate that lots of people have faced the same or much worse through history.  I think he'd have reminded us of the people of Eyam.

This helps me sometimes.

Andy 1902 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> The problem/crux may be that of balancing mental health with physical/wider health? Some of us can need a certain amount of social contact to stop from feeling glum. I fully appreciate that being very ill or dying, or having the same happen on a mass scale or to relatives, isn't helpful for mental health.

It isn't good but with the correct health care the distress can be managed. Watching people dyeing in agony due to the NHS being overwhelmed is fairly likely to cause a new mass set of mental health problems - people don't often see that happen anymore. I'll be speaking to my Mum later (who is very active and will hate the idea of forced isolation) conversation will be mainly about mitigating the affects of isolation rather than allowing her her to say 'I'm not doing that!'.

1
 Tom Valentine 15 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

I seem to recall one of the Eyam survivors putting her success down to the fact that she drank a pint of hot bacon grease every day. 

 wercat 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

excellent!

 Andy Clarke 15 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> You should just stay in with Covid and read the Metamorphoses

Desire and reason are pulling in different directions. I see the right way and approve it, but follow the wrong.

 krikoman 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

The question you should be asking is who suggested this? I've only seen reports of "a government source" there's no name and therefore no accountability, should you be demanding the government, make these statements to the people DIRECTLY not through some news agency.

More scaremongering bullshit, caused by the government itself, we should be demanding accountability and proper governance.

@Bob Kemp, sorry just read ore of the thread and see you already said much of this.

Post edited at 13:30
1
 Bob Kemp 15 Mar 2020
In reply to krikoman:

Gets worse- I see Matt Hancock is now putting out the latest message via the paywalled Daily Telegraph. Of course he probably thinks that everyone reads the Telegraph...

2
 elsewhere 15 Mar 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> The question you should be asking is who suggested this? I've only seen reports of "a government source" there's no name and therefore no accountability, should you be demanding the government, make these statements to the people DIRECTLY not through some news agency.

It's been stated on the BBC this morning by Health Secretary Matt Hancock that it will happen "within coming weeks". It's looping on BBC 24 News. Other than Boris doing a press conference it doesn't get any more official or high profile.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51895873

Every Briton over the age of 70 will be told "within the coming weeks" to stay at home for an extended period to shield them from coronavirus, Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said.

Post edited at 13:42
Gone for good 15 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

Same message on Sky News.  Potentially up to 16 weeks! Good luck with that. I think what is confusing people is "the coming weeks" which is a bit of a mixed message. 

1
 krikoman 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Gets worse- I see Matt Hancock is now putting out the latest message via the paywalled Daily Telegraph. Of course he probably thinks that everyone reads the Telegraph...


Bring on the revolution!!

Matt Hancock, is like his name suggests a bit of a cock. How he has a job is a mystery, he simply tells lies, like QT, "we've been working with the super markets to make sure we can get deliveries to self isolating people", no such thing.

It's way past time people especially our MPs should be sacked for lying.

3
In reply to Jim Nevill:

I'm thinking of self isolating from all sources of news

Al

 krikoman 15 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> It's been stated on the BBC this morning by Health Secretary Matt Hancock that it will happen "within coming weeks". It's looping on BBC 24 News. Other than Boris doing a press conference it doesn't get any more official or high profile.

AFTER being announced by Peston the day before!  Say something, see how it plays, then make it official. Beside Hancock is the one who told us, they were in discussions with the supermarkets, when in fact this was made up.

2
 Davidlees215 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

My mum and dad are separated. My mum is 70 and very fit and active (tells me she walls 70 miles a week). My dad is 68 and has multiple issues with his health (recent stroke, heart issues, hypertension, as well as mild dementia). Clearly I would be much much more worried about my dad getting coronavirus or indeed anything else.

Thinking back to when my grandparents were that age, my grandad in his early 70s was essentially a carer for my grandmother, late 60s. If there were a similar couple now how would that work? I've also known people to live with elderly parents, would they all need to isolate? 

Obviously this is only vague plans by the government at the moment but think they may need to put a bit of thought into it.

 Bob Kemp 15 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

The problem here is that the government appears to be (mis)using the lobby system to road-test policy, not how official the information is. 

 marsbar 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

The only thing he will touch is his own door.  It's a rural area.  

 Sean Kelly 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

So we lock up all pensioners and flood the streets with convicts! Is that what's coming?

1
Andy 1902 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Sean Kelly:

> So we lock up all pensioners and flood the streets with convicts! Is that what's coming?


I believe that is the Daily Mail headline for tomorrow.

In reply to Sean Kelly:

The more I've thought about this the more outraged I've become. It's very "ageist" and dictatorial.  So much so that I don't think they will do it. IMO it's  more likely to be advisory.

Al

23
 marsbar 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

It is based on the statistics unfortunately.  

I agree it is ageist but so is the death proportion.  

I will be advising my parents to avoid shopping and similar outings.  

1
 SAF 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Several months of social distancing/isolation will no doubt be miserable.

But think yourself lucky your not having to work through it. I'm a paramedic, I'll be right on the front line, who knows how long my shifts will end up being and how many extra shifts I will be expected to work. If I'm expected to work excessive hours for several months I won't get to spend time with my 2 year old daughter. I will probably get ill at some point as exposure to the virus will be almost unavoidable in a pre hospital care environment.

Then you've got the people in my generation who are inevitably going to loose their jobs (and subsequently their homes) due to the economic impact of this virus. 

My generation (30 somethings) are unlikely to die from this but we do risk losing a lot. I hardly think it is too much to ask for retired people in the most at risk age group to stay at home, as much as possible, in order to protect themselves and their generation.

1
In reply to marsbar:

I think that a 50 year old with underlying health conditions is probably more at risk than me to be honest which makes this very ageist.  I have no issue in avoiding crowds, that seems eminently sensible given the current climate, but telling me that I MUST stay indoors for 4 months is quite simply outrageous. But as I have said above "self isolate" may not mean that in this context in which case we shall have to wait and see.  The definition I have seen even suggests that my wife and I should sleep in separate rooms.  Convicts are treated better than this.

Al

Post edited at 15:55
14
 wintertree 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> It's very "ageist"

So are the effects of the virus.  This isn’t just about the health of the elderly, or of all people with the virus, or of the health workers, but of anyone who will depend on any medical care for any reason in the next 12 weeks or so.

1
 wercat 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Order a t-shirt or 2 with the motto "Creaking Doors hang the Longest!"

 Baz P 15 Mar 2020
In reply to marsbar:

Your parents are lucky, who’s going to do my shopping? Home alone. 

In reply to Baz P:

> Your parents are lucky, who’s going to do my shopping? Home alone. 

Likewise.  Both the wife and I are over 70. Have you tried to get a home delivery time slot of late.  It's difficult and can only get worse.  But if I stock pile I will be vilified. I don't believe this has been thought through.

Al

1
 SAF 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> if I stock pile I will be vilified. I don't believe this has been thought through.

And? 

Do what you need to in order to prepare.

I don't think anyone reasonable person is going to vilify a retired couple (I won't call you elderly) for preparing for a very uncertain few months.

Even if you can't get home delivery you can normally book click and collect much more easily/last minute, and ask a friend/neighbour to collect it, or drive yourself to the collection point in the carpark and straight home again.

Post edited at 16:20
 neilh 15 Mar 2020
In reply to SAF:

 Well put together 10/10 .

Interesting that none of the other posters have responded.

Hope  it goes ok for you and your young family with you over the next few months.

In reply to SAF:

The problem is that the advice for self isolating, which I have referenced previously in this thread, is for people who have symptoms and is for a limited time period e.g. 2 weeks.  To apply this rigorous regime to otherwise healthy people for a period of 4 months is verging on contravening peoples civil liberties, regardless of the context. Self isolating for over 70's needs to be redefined for this purpose.

Having said all that I am very sympathetic, indeed I admire, people like yourself who are in the front line but I am sure that you would object to your family having to self isolate because you are after all also in a high risk group are you not?

Al

4
 neilh 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I am not sure that the virus is a respecter of civil liberties .

1
Andy 1902 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> The problem is that the advice for self isolating, which I have referenced previously in this thread, is for people who have symptoms and is for a limited time period e.g. 2 weeks.  To apply this rigorous regime to otherwise healthy people for a period of 4 months is verging on contravening peoples civil liberties, regardless of the context. Self isolating for over 70's needs to be redefined for this purpose.

> Having said all that I am very sympathetic, indeed I admire, people like yourself who are in the front line but I am sure that you would object to your family having to self isolate because you are after all also in a high risk group are you not?

> Al

High risk of catching the virus does not mean high risk of needing NHS resources - a subtle but very important point in how to make decisions. Whilst how fit and active you are isn't always a judge of whether you will shrug of an illness/injury - it has much to do with ageing processes.

In reply to neilh:

I'm sorry that's just a smart arsed, glib response to an otherwise serious issue and has been made before on this post. Would you care to address my points?

Al

13
XXXX 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Given that the whole world under 70 is sacrificing jobs, education and their financial stability to protect those most vulnerable (ie mostly the over 70s), is it too much to ask that those who are over 70 wind their necks in and play their part when asked?

Otherwise it's just a tad ungrateful no? 

8
In reply to Andy 1902:

That's a good point an adds to the debate.  There is a balance that needs to be reached between risk, resources and civil liberties. IMO confining otherwise healthy over 70's to their homes for 4 months is at serious risk of infringing those civil liberties unless of course they redefine "self isolation" which is the point I keep making.

Al

3
 neilh 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

It was meant to be. You are unfortunately in a high risk age group. Why not bury your civil liberties view and look at what the wider community is asking you to do and respect it.

5
In reply to neilh:

It's not just civil liberties it's the practicalities.  Do you have an understanding of what the current self isolation definition involves?  ALL over 70's not leaving their homes or engaging in any social activity for 4 months.  Husbands and wives sleeping in different rooms and never touching. No visitors whatsoever. Having anything delivered left on the door step.  Unfortunately there are likely to be some unforeseen consequences IMO.

Al

2
XXXX 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

What makes you so special? Have you got any idea what self isolating with toddlers is like? There are families doing this up and down the country even though they have next to no risk of dieing. And apparently it's millennials who have the sense of entitlement and all the old folks who are selfless and community minded.

9
In reply to XXXX:

Why are you making this personal?  We are debating what if FFS. 

Al

7
 wintertree 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> It's not just civil liberties it's the practicalities

We have a small child and stopped going anywhere with them two weeks ago.  There are a lot of practicalities.  I’m not very worried about what happens to any of us when we get it, but I don’t want people I know to be deciding which pensioners suffocate through pneumonia and which they get to sedate and shove a tube in to, so I’m doing what I can to slow the spread.

Civil liberties don’t get infringed if people make the choice them self.  They’re also worth jack shit if using them ends up with you suffocating to death on a cheap hotel bed in a field hospital.

Edit - I looked after my dad in his last months and know what the practicalities can be like.  I don’t think anyone is going to propose welding the doors shut on houses for people over 70 so much as a significant but not total reduction in close contact with others.  But let’s not get ahead of ourselves - the proposals aren’t public yet!

Post edited at 17:35
1
 DancingOnRock 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

I think this whole thread is another example of UKC working itself up into a frenzy over what could happen without having any of the real information. 
 

Why do you do it to yourselves? 
 

No wonder people go out and panic buy toilet rolls. 

 Dave Garnett 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> I think so, but I’m a Vet not a Medic!

Seem to me that someone like you needs to explain herd immunity to our health policy makers!

Just allowing everyone to catch something isn't really the idea.

4
 Coel Hellier 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> IMO confining otherwise healthy over 70's to their homes for 4 months is at serious risk of infringing those civil liberties unless of course they redefine "self isolation" which is the point I keep making.

However, so far the government has *not* asked over 70's to self-isolate.  (They've just indicated that they may at some point.)  Thus, what they mean by "over-70s self-isolating" has also not been stated.   

If and when they ask over-70s to self-isolate, then presumably at that point they'll spell out what they're asking for.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> No wonder people go out and panic buy toilet rolls. 

I agree I thought we were just having a friendly discussion. But seriously if you thought you were going to be confined to your house until August what would you be doing to prepare?

Al

1
 Tom Valentine 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I've been thinking about funerals; it will be a sorry state of affairs if the only people allowed to pay their respects at an 80 year old's funeral are not of that age group. Presumably a person's wife/ brother/sister would be able to attend ( without too much stigma being attached to their presence)

XXXX 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Apologies. If I was a psychologist I'd say it was me venting all the things I would like to have said to the old lady who had a go at me for panic buying milk yesterday. I was buying 12 pints of fresh milk. She had 27 toilet rolls.

Anyway, thanks for the prod, I'll step away from the internet now.

But all the things I said stand, just imagine them aimed at a whole demographic, not you. And frankly, a lot of over 70s I have met virtually and in real life seem be thinking a blitz spirit of carrying on as normal is going to work whilst the rest of us are royally ruining our lives to help them.

6
In reply to XXXX:

> But all the things I said stand, just imagine them aimed at a whole demographic, not you. And frankly, a lot of over 70s I have met virtually and in real life seem be thinking a blitz spirit of carrying on as normal is going to work whilst the rest of us are royally ruining our lives to help them.

Apology accepted but would you care to give an example of what you are doing personally that is "royally ruining your life"? 

Al

Post edited at 17:37
3
 Tom Valentine 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

That's a good point. If you replace "hysterical panic buying" with "sensible stock piling" then you can imagine lots of items in your cupboard/ freezer  which might need a bit of backup if we are actually talking about closeting ourselves till August. 

Expecting supermarkets' home delivery services to suddenly accommodate a massive increase in demand is not going to work.

If you are expecting me to lock myself away for three months then make allowances for me thinking long term about my shopping needs,

Post edited at 17:38
 Graeme G 15 Mar 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> No wonder people go out and panic buy toilet rolls. 

Does that help reduce the stress? Would other household sundries suffice as a substitute? 
I’m only asking as, if I find myself in a frenzy and can’t find toilet roll I don’t want to left wanting.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Agreed but I thought we were discussing the subject of the post not the reality of the situation

Al

 BnB 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> However, so far the government has *not* asked over 70's to self-isolate.  (They've just indicated that they may at some point.)  Thus, what they mean by "over-70s self-isolating" has also not been stated.   

> If and when they ask over-70s to self-isolate, then presumably at that point they'll spell out what they're asking for.

The media is very eager to scream that the Spanish are "imprisoned in their own homes" today. But it turns out that people are allowed to go to work in offices or essential retail outlets and go shopping for food. Public transport is still running.

Presumably the elderly here will be permitted to pop to the shops as well if they don't have helpful neighbour.

 marsbar 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Baz P:

If the schools get shut I expect to be shopping and running errands for other people not just my parents.  People are starting to organise local groups to do just that.  Having seen the UKC response on a few occasions when people have been worried I expect there will be help from here too if anyone lives near you.

 NBR 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

The cynic in me thinks the powers that be know that it would be impossible to follow but it allows them to side step some responsibility if it all goes pear shapped.

'Well they did pop down the shops a few times, if they'd folllowed our instructions they would have been fine'

 climbingpixie 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Death, on a crowded hospital corridor, with no-one attending to you because the nurses are all exhausted.   (At least for one interpretation of "caught out".)

Or some poor doctor having to make the decision that you don't get a ventilator because there aren't enough to go round and they have to prioritise patients who are more likely to survive. That seems to be where Italy is at the moment - if you're >65 or have certain co-morbidities you don't even get an ITU assessment, let alone a bed.

Post edited at 18:20
1
vancian 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

There seems to be a strong assumption that being a fit 70 year old is a massive protection. Is this warrented? The death rate shoots up in the 70's age category far faster than frailty or underlying conditions would be likely to.

I have heard scientists saying that there are factors associated with age that make you more vulnerable to the virus and fitness will not help very much. Although you'll obviously be better off than a 75 year old with COPD you may still be at far greater risk than an unfit 50 year old with all sorts of health issues.

 neilh 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Strong sense of community spirit and huge peer pressure to conform. 
 

it will not be easy. Which is why Uk Gov is pushing back on it until necessary. 

 MonkeyPuzzle 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Fatality rate in Italy of 34% for the 70-79 age group. I'm sure it's all going to be fine.

1
 marsbar 15 Mar 2020
In reply to vancian:

As it is a threat to lungs I imagine being fit and healthy and a non smoker probably is much more important than chronological age.  

I'm not a doctor so I don't know.  

1
 FactorXXX 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Isn't it just a cunning plan to get rid of Corbyn?

vancian 15 Mar 2020
In reply to marsbar:

There are plenty of smoking, asthmatic 40 year olds who have caught it - they seem to be mostly alive, although they may have had a horrible time.

I suspect quiet a few of the dead 70 year olds felt they were fit. Especially as they may not assess your climbing grade before deciding there aren't enough ventilators for people over an arbitary age

1
 Timmd 15 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> Our headmaster, one of whose brothers died in a Japanese prisoner of war camp, always said that in hard times we should contemplate that lots of people have faced the same or much worse through history.  I think he'd have reminded us of the people of Eyam.

> This helps me sometimes.

Yes, in the grand scheme of things, stopping inside and eating long lasting food and working on the parts of our selves which can tend to lay dormant in a busier lifestyle isn't such a big thing. I used to notice that when I was injured a lot in my youth, I'd have to find ways for to be more agreeable to be still. 

Post edited at 20:27
1
 marsbar 15 Mar 2020
In reply to vancian:

We are both speculating at this point.  I don't know.  

In reply to Jim Nevill:

I've just listened to a news item.  One presenter said over 70's will be told to self isolate, the next one said they will be advised and the one after that said they will be asked.  Considering they are all journalists on the same channel this is very sloppy use of language and does not help matters at all. Words matter.

Al

1
 LastBoyScout 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Yes, in the grand scheme of things, stopping inside and eating long lasting food and working on the parts of our selves which can tend to lay dormant in a busier lifestyle isn't such a big thing. I used to notice that when I was injured a lot in my youth, I'd have to find ways for to be more agreeable to be still. 

Spoke to my parents earlier today (both early/mid 70s) in relation to this and what arrangements we might need to make regarding childcare if/when this happens/they close the schools.

They've spent the better part of 6 weeks earlier this year living on a below par diet (takeaways, microwave meals, eating out and some meals with friends and family) due to a kitchen refit over-running for various reasons and it's had a noticeable effect on their health. After a month back on a proper diet, including multivitamin supplements, they're back in good health. And that includes the usual getting out of the house-type activities.

I really wouldn't underestimate the effect on the health of the over-70s if they are forced to completely self-isolate - both mental and physical.

We lost my father-in-law 18 months ago and my m-in-l lives on her own - it's the last thing she would want to do, the same for my parents. They are all in good health otherwise and you'd have to force my Mum to do it pretty much at gun point!

In fact, as a retired nurse, my Mum could well be asked to step back into the role!

On the other hand, 2 of my Aunts would be right at the sharp end of vulnerable - one is already on daily oxygen and the other is diabetic and has just come out of hospital from minor surgery.

 wercat 15 Mar 2020
In reply to vancian:

so is it the virus killing old people or the health policies?

If the latter then it is a case to fight back

or are you trying to spread mistrust of the NHS, another UKC 5th columnist-agent

Post edited at 22:28
 wercat 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I suppose if they just tell us as Vancian says that older folk will not get ICU beds then they could depend on personal choice ...

 The New NickB 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

It’s guidance to protect the vulnerable and try and limit the impact on limited NHS resources. Admittedly incredibly badly handled in terms of government communication.

Perhaps you could show the sort of maturity and wisdom that people claim comes with age.

Post edited at 23:00
 Andy Hardy 15 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy 1902:

> I believe that is the Daily Mail headline for tomorrow.

Nearly. 

"Immigrants importing Corona virus by boat - at taxpayers expense" 

Ticks more boxes

 jethro kiernan 15 Mar 2020
In reply to marsbar:

A sobering reminder of what recovery can mean 

my neighbour caught the Avian flu the same time as myself a few years back, I was bed bound for three days he was in intensive care for six weeks.

he is now registered disabled with 60% reduction in lung function 

if he gets Coronavirus it’s probably a death sentence 

his over all quality of late life is much going to be much reduced as is his like expectancy 

He would struggle to walk up a mountain or go for a session at the climbing wall

we were both relatively fit forty year olds at the time, luck of the draw I guess but it’s made me a lot warier, if you look at the odds for 45-55 year olds suddenly if you add in 2% chance of dying 10% chance being f£&@ed up it’s not so flippant your suddenly getting quite close to Russian roulette territory. 

 Timmd 16 Mar 2020
In reply to LastBoyScout:

It wasn't people 70 or older whom I had in mind, but with that being the thread topic I can see why you would have thought it was.

 profitofdoom 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> I'm thinking of self isolating from all sources of news > Al

In my opinion that is THE BEST COMMENT ON UKC FOR A VERY LONG TIME

1
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Given that the self isolation is intended to save the over 70s from death it is pretty much your own risk if you want to carry on as normal. What are they going to do, arrest you?

 wercat 16 Mar 2020
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

I think it is intended to reduce the call on services by over 70s.  Saving lives is a consequence and some of those might be over 70s.

 fred99 16 Mar 2020
In reply to XXXX:

> ... And apparently it's millennials who have the sense of entitlement and all the old folks who are selfless and community minded.

Did you see the TV over the weekend ?

All the youngsters "celebrating" St Patricks day - more like indulging in a great p*ss-up. This was AFTER the official parade had been cancelled to reduce infection, and their accents were definitely NOT Irish. Oh, and they were all crushed against each other in the pubs, certainly not  a metre apart. Probably find that covid-19 wasn't the only "little nasty" being transmitted after they got drunk either.

2
 Andy Clarke 16 Mar 2020
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> Given that the self isolation is intended to save the over 70s from death it is pretty much your own risk if you want to carry on as normal. What are they going to do, arrest you?


Should they choose to do so then, as I understand it, they would have the power under the emergency regulations which were passed last month. And fine you up to £1,000. I'm glad I'm only in my 60's.

 wercat 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy Clarke:

will we be asked to carry proof of age?  Perhaps we will be arrested for being out and not having it.

Post edited at 11:02
 Andy Clarke 16 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> will we be asked to carry proof of age?  Perhaps we will be arrested for being out and not having it.

The World Turned Upside Down: ASBOs for OAPs, moral panics over Senior Delinquents.

In reply to Jim Nevill:

The irony is that at the same time as threatening to keep pensioners indoors for 4 months they are also talking about releasing convicted criminals.  The world HAS gone mad.

Al

Post edited at 11:22
1
 summo 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

It's becoming a farce. Instead of locking everyone down for a few weeks they've decided to risk a large proportion catching it, but some how not overwhelm the nhs, as happened in Italy. I think they've set themselves up for a massive fall. Pensioners can't quarantine for 4months, many need fairly frequent care etc. They'll be mixing with folk any way, the nhs will be swamped with the old and those under 70 with various medical conditions in no time at all, as they still have not put out a blanket order banning large groups. 

2
 Mr Lopez 16 Mar 2020
In reply to fred99:

> > ... And apparently it's millennials who have the sense of entitlement and all the old folks who are selfless and community minded.

> Did you see the TV over the weekend ?

> All the youngsters "celebrating" St Patricks day - more like indulging in a great p*ss-up. This was AFTER the official parade had been cancelled to reduce infection, and their accents were definitely NOT Irish. Oh, and they were all crushed against each other in the pubs, certainly not  a metre apart. Probably find that covid-19 wasn't the only "little nasty" being transmitted after they got drunk either.

Maybe they all climb 6a and so why the hell should they abide by generic advice? 

 mondite 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Maybe they all climb 6a and so why the hell should they abide by generic advice? 


I am not sure how climbing grade prevents catching corona virus? Do you have further info could be highly profitable for walls and instructors quickly training people up.

 summo 16 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> I am not sure how climbing grade prevents catching corona virus? Do you have further info could be highly profitable for walls and instructors quickly training people up.

There'll be less virus covered fingers reaching the top of 7b than a 5b?

Best solution, just get outdoors, pick the less frequented crags and routes, you'll have near zero risk. A day scrambling on your own, zero risk. 

 MonkeyPuzzle 16 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

He's referencing comments further upthread. Ironically, I hope.

 Robert Durran 16 Mar 2020
In reply to mondite:

> I am not sure how climbing grade prevents catching corona virus?

Smaller holds on harder routes meaning less contact and less virus transferred? Though it may work the other way round for bouldering with the modern trend for hideous blobs and slopers.

 Offwidth 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

They need to free up space for the militant pensioners

Being serious for a while, yes its mad but equally my wife and I don't want to lose all 4 parents (in their 80s and all with additional health complications) . If old people move (to go for a walk) but don't mix, I cant see much of an issue, unless there is a curfew.

Post edited at 12:13
 elsewhere 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

If you combine COVID-19 Fatality Rate by AGE with proportion of UK population in that age range you can calculate proportion of total fatalities by age range.

80+ years old are 3.8% of population with 31.2% of total fatalities
70-79 years old are 7.1% of population with 31.2% of total fatalities
60-69 years old are 10.9% of population with 21.4% of total fatalities
50-59 years old are 12.3% of population with 8.7% of total fatalities
40-49 years old are 14.8% of population with 3.2% of total fatalities
30-39 years old are 13.3% of population with 1.5% of total fatalities
20-29 years old are 13.7% of population with 1.5% of total fatalities
10-19 years old are 12.2% of population with 1.3% of total fatalities
0-9 years old are 11.9% of population with no fatalities

Hence self isolation of 11% of the population (over 70's) reduces peak demand on NHS by up to 62% (assuming hospitalisations and fatalities closely linked).

That is an oversimplification and overoptimistic but the effect of over 70's self isolating is huge.

It makes it much more likely the over 70's will get hospital treatment if they need it.

It makes it much more likely anybody of any age will get hospital treatment if they need it.

It actually makes sense for over 70's to self isolate, then over 60's, and then over 50's if things get worse with people coming out of self isolation in the reverse order. 

It's time to leave the running of the country to those under forty, or perhaps a clever nine year old!

Data sources
COVID-19 Fatality Rate by AGE 
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
(read this link to see why the left hand set of percentages does not add up to 100%)

Age structure 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

Yes the UK might be different, it depends on how successfully the NHS ramps up capacity, it's unlikely the UK will exactly match worldwide averages on worldometer etc etc etc  

Post edited at 13:05
1
 wercat 16 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

would teenagers living with over 50s - 60s be rehomed?

russellcampbell 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy 1902:

> Some of the replies remind me of those that thought Black Outs did not apply to themselves during the war. If the oldies have forgotten how to behave during a national crisis then shame on them.

Have you any idea how self-righteous this sounds?

12
 wercat 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

nah,

Vdiffs are the safest as shown by Ray MacHaffie climbing Little Chamonix in Boxing gloves and Roller skates - almost zero risk of biohazard!

Post edited at 13:37
russellcampbell 16 Mar 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

> It’s guidance to protect the vulnerable and try and limit the impact on limited NHS resources. Admittedly incredibly badly handled in terms of government communication.

> Perhaps you could show the sort of maturity and wisdom that people claim comes with age.

Another self-righteous post. I'll be 70 in 6 months. I'm fed up with some people on this forum treating older people as if they are pariahs.

17
 girlymonkey 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Your fitness level and general health is not an indicator of the ability of your immune system to deal with the virus. As you age your immune system doesn't work so well. It's just a fact, and is very relevant to this. The decline in immune function with age doesn't appear to be linked with climbing grade I'm afraid.

If you don't self-isolate, and get ill, then you might well end up in a hospital bed for a long time. If everyone over 70 has the same theory, the NHS is going to be swamped and people who need treatment for anything else won't get it. In a car crash? Tough, you can keep your broken bones and let them heal squinty so you never walk again. Diabetic hypo? Tough, dead. Severe allergic reaction? Dead.

Please don't be selfish!

I have to keep working and infection risk for me is high, so I am not seeing vulnerable family members and friends, I am not going to indoor gatherings of any sorts. Much of my food gets delivered anyway, so I am minimising my time in supermarkets, and much of my work is now being cancelled so money is about to get tight! It's not easy for anyone, but we all have to do our best to limit spread and impact.

1
russellcampbell 16 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> will we be asked to carry proof of age?  Perhaps we will be arrested for being out and not having it.

My wife is just back from the local Lidl's. She overheard a conversation between a man and a woman both obviously over 70.

Man. "They can f*ck off with their self-isolation."

Woman. "But you might be arrested."

Man. "They can f*cking try."

That's the spirit!

12
 elsewhere 16 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> would teenagers living with over 50s - 60s be rehomed?

Only if orphaned.

 fred99 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> Maybe they all climb 6a and so why the hell should they abide by generic advice? 


And who do they pass it on to ?

 Timmd 16 Mar 2020
In reply to girlymonkey:

> As you age your immune system doesn't work so well. It's just a fact, and is very relevant to this. The decline in immune function with age doesn't appear to be linked with climbing grade I'm afraid.

> If you don't self-isolate, and get ill, then you might well end up in a hospital bed for a long time. If everyone over 70 has the same theory, the NHS is going to be swamped and people who need treatment for anything else won't get it. In a car crash? Tough, you can keep your broken bones and let them heal squinty so you never walk again. Diabetic hypo? Tough, dead. Severe allergic reaction? Dead.

> Please don't be selfish!

Well put, I guess too that it's a case of 'some' self isolation being better than none, if it takes place across the population. 

Post edited at 13:37
1
 Trangia 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Well said. I am 76 and fit for my age, have had a few inconveniences like prostate cancer, but I still enjoy life  and keep active. My main pleasure these days is walking on the Downs and in the country, probably 2 or 3 times a week and up to 10 miles at a time. This keeps my body healthy and my mind happy. To lose this freedom would be like a prison sentence, and I would go mad being cooped up in my home for weeks on end. It would also lead to a loss of joint and muscle mobility - not good at my age. 

I am hoping that the self isolation restrictions will not include going walking (or for that matter outdoor climbing, sailing rowing, cycling and running etc). After all when you do these pursuits the risk of contracting C19 minimal, virtually non existent, so there would be no point in including them.

I have therefor written to my local MP asking her to put these points to the PM and his team when drafting the order for self isolation, because there must be hundreds of thousands of fit pensioners out there affected by the proposals. We are not stupid and have reached this age group with years of experience on how to look after ourselves.

So I urge you anyone else who is feeling angry at this broad brush approach to make their feelings known to their local MP

I've just heard on the News that it is proposed that over 70s ignoring this order, when it comes into force, will face a fine of £1000 or prison!!

2
 Timmd 16 Mar 2020
In reply to russellcampbell:

> Another self-righteous post. I'll be 70 in 6 months. I'm fed up with some people on this forum treating older people as if they are pariahs.

It strikes me that people in their 70's and diabetics like myself are in the same boat, pretty much, in that it's in our own best interests to self isolate (if not totally, than more so), so that we, as well as having less chance of catching it and being ill enough to need medical care, don't take up a hospital bed for somebody who's had a car accident or some other more usual unfortunate life event. 

When I think of it like this, I'm pretty happy to do my bit.

Post edited at 13:34
1
 Blue Straggler 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Trangia:

> I've just heard on the News that it is proposed that over 70s ignoring this order, when it comes into force, will face a fine of £1000 or prison!!

Which news service are you following?

 Timmd 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Trangia: I'd possibly be thinking about a bicycle and bandanna around your face.

I'm nearly as at risk as over 70's, and I'll be cycling out to the Peak as much as usual even while being less sociable.

1
 keith sanders 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Maybe the Tory party has gone mad with Barmy Boris as their leader? And on the good side most off the House of Lords won’t be claiming their £400 expenses for snuzzing, Light hearted said.

keith s

1
 Trangia 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Got the tail end of a bit on the BBC News, but cant find a reference to it now, so hope I misheard it. Does sound a bit draconian......

 Timmd 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Trangia: It isn't as if being in the outdoors and not in close proximity to people is going to mean one catches it I don't suppose?

In reply to Timmd:

> When I think of it like this, I'm pretty happy to do my bit.

It depends what "doing my bit" means.  I'm perfectly happy to avoid crowds, wash my hand regularly, avoid physical contact etc. but it would be unreasonable to expect me to stick to the current definition of self isolation. which is intended for infected individuals and for shorter periods of time.  We will have to wait and see.

Al

2
 brianjcooper 16 Mar 2020
In reply to fred99:

> All the youngsters "celebrating" St Patricks day - more like indulging in a great p*ss-up. This was AFTER the official parade had been cancelled to reduce infection, and their accents were definitely NOT Irish. Oh, and they were all crushed against each other in the pubs, certainly not  a metre apart. Probably find that covid-19 wasn't the only "little nasty" being transmitted after they got drunk either.

As an over 70 year old I am mindful of my immunity system not working as well as younger people, and WILL self isolate because (a) it helps reduce the pressure on an already stretched NHS  and (b) it might, just might, reduce my chances of getting the virus.

I also think younger members of the public should also be mindful that they may be virus carriers, and close proximity to each other only helps it spread more easily. There seems to be a belief that it is an old persons disease. Given enough time you might find out otherwise.     

Post edited at 14:12
 LastBoyScout 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Which news service are you following?

It's on the Mirror - so take that as you will. Applies to "anyone", I think, not just >=70.

 mondite 16 Mar 2020
In reply to LastBoyScout:

> It's on the Mirror - so take that as you will. Applies to "anyone", I think, not just >=70.


That seems to be purely for people thought to have the virus as opposed to those being advised to self quarantine for their own health.

 Flinticus 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Just confiscate their bus pass?

 skog 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Isn't the average age of members of the House of Lords about 70?

I wonder what the party split is, of those who'll be required to stay away...

 The New NickB 16 Mar 2020
In reply to russellcampbell:

> Another self-righteous post. I'll be 70 in 6 months. I'm fed up with some people on this forum treating older people as if they are pariahs.

No I’m treating the OP as an ignorant fool. Nothing self-righteous about that, as opposed to your post. I’m treating older people as statistically more vulnerable, not pariahs.

2
 Hat Dude 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

>  Anyway, if stopped I'll say I'm 69

You might be id'ed in the pub!

 MargieB 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Some over 70s can't help but go to shops occasionally. How about certain days like Monday and Tuesdays for these people and people with conditions. Also play The Police song, Don't stand so Close to me over and over again - my shop experience today and escalator experience was dreadful today cause people have't got message.

In reply to russellcampbell:

It really isn’t the spirit. Goodness, are all old people this selfish?

jcm

2
 mondite 16 Mar 2020
In reply to MargieB:

> Some over 70s can't help but go to shops occasionally.

every lunchtime isnt it?

 SDM 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> I've been thinking about funerals; it will be a sorry state of affairs if the only people allowed to pay their respects at an 80 year old's funeral are not of that age group. Presumably a person's wife/ brother/sister would be able to attend ( without too much stigma being attached to their presence)

I heard (second hand) a week or two ago that funerals in the worst hit parts of Italy were restricted to a very short service with only partners, parents, children and siblings of the deceased allowed to attend.

Removed User 16 Mar 2020
In reply to skog:

I hope they enjoy their bingo as the patronising scumbag who says us over 70s will have to give up. Or would he prefer to join my dogs and I on our 4.9  mile run to collect our daily paper and then come soloing for an hour or two.

1
 girlymonkey 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> I hope they enjoy their bingo as the patronising scumbag who says us over 70s will have to give up. Or would he prefer to join my dogs and I on our 4.9  mile run to collect our daily paper and then come soloing for an hour or two.

I suspect there is nothing wrong with you running with the dog and soloing, as no human contact. Just stay out of crowded places! It's not about your fitness or activity levels. As you age your immunity declines, just with age, not due to inactivity, so stay away from people!

 Enty 16 Mar 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Same as Facebook. This Covid 19 has really brought the willy wavers out.

They should definitely go and visit my mate in Lombardy where people are actually pulling together and helping each other instead of sticking two fingers up.

E

 jkarran 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> The article I have read suggests self isolation is exactly that.  Staying indoors. I suspect they are leaking this to see how people respond.  It seems totally unrealistic and very unreasonable to me.

There are only bad choices, avoiding getting it while health services are swamped seems pretty reasonable advice to be fair. Your call if you ignore it but it is not just your life you risk if you needlessly end up on a ventilator for a month peak season.

Jk

 elsewhere 16 Mar 2020
In reply to jkarran:

St Louis reacted much better (social distancing) than Philadephia during the 1918 flu so the number of cases was lower and the peak in cases per day was five times lower - that would be massively important for not overwhelming the NHS.

https://www.bmj.com/content/334/7608/1341.2.full

In reply to jkarran:

Up until now this has just been a hypothetical debate so it's a little annoying to be talked at as if I am a) selfish and b) stupid.  I am neither but I would like clearer more specific advice. Use of general vague terms like unnecessary  and "over 70's will be shielded from" tell me very little. Are they going to put a cordon round my house? My daughter was planning to visit this weekend, should we cancel?  I need to shop. is that essential? How am I going to be treated if I go to the supermarket?  I live in the countryside, surely walking the dog is not an issue?  All of these things are currently unclear. The general advice is specific.  Don't go to the pub or social gatherings etc. I can do that but it seems we have to go a stage further. 

Al

Post edited at 18:00
1
 elsewhere 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> I am neither but I would like clearer more specific advice.

If you self isolate well enough for long enough you might not catch Covid19 because it's not circulating so much.

If you do catch it later the NHS should have recovered from any overload so you get better medical care.

By not using up NHS resources at the time of peak demand somebody else's survival chances are improved.

There's no certainty though and the above it just my general logic.

Post edited at 18:04
In reply to elsewhere:

Yes that is my understanding but expecting me to follow the advice given to people with symptoms but to do so for 4 months rather than 14 days still seems a little unrealistic.

Al

 FactorXXX 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> Yes that is my understanding but expecting me to follow the advice given to people with symptoms but to do so for 4 months rather than 14 days still seems a little unrealistic.

From an article on the BBC Website:
Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told the BBC that over-70s will be told they can go out for walks under the guidelines.

 neilh 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

It’s going to be tough for a lot of people not just you!!

This is huge. 

Not  sure it will be acceptable to have vast crowds at Stanage any more. 
 

club meets at huts etc etc will all be pushed back over the next few weeks. 

1
 jkarran 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I don't know. Nobody really does but for now it seems wise not to take unknown risks and try not to take it personally that advice and restrictions are broad brush.

Jk

 elsewhere 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> Yes that is my understanding but expecting me to follow the advice given to people with symptoms but to do so for 4 months rather than 14 days still seems a little unrealistic.

Is that the advice you're being given or is it suggested you might want to avoid contact as much as possible?

So far non-infected it's all about washing your hands and not being close to people. Can you work out for yourself how you can reduce your contacts with contaminated surfaces and people closer than 2m by 90%? 

Can you go shopping infrequently at quiet times and get to places where you don't get close to people for any significant time?

Post edited at 18:33
 seankenny 16 Mar 2020

> But all the things I said stand, just imagine them aimed at a whole demographic, not you. And frankly, a lot of over 70s I have met virtually and in real life seem be thinking a blitz spirit of carrying on as normal is going to work whilst the rest of us are royally ruining our lives to help them.

> In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> Apology accepted but would you care to give an example of what you are doing personally that is "royally ruining your life"? 

Al, in case you haven't noticed we are going to have a massive recession due to the efforts we are making to keep our fellow citizens - most of them elderly - from dying en masse. People are going to lose income, lose jobs, have major disruptions to their education, all of which will have long term negative effects for them. Imagine being pregnant right now and not knowing what state the NHS will be in when you have your baby. Imagine being in a car crash when ICU spaces are very limited. Imagine being on chemo with a shot immune system right now.

Those sorts of things really are life ruining, or could be, if all the elderly decide that somehow they are special cases who can't cope with the sacrifices we are asking them to make. However we are doing this because the prospect of doing otherwise is too horrific to contemplate. You are of course completely right to demand more information and clarity about what this will mean for you. But at the end of the day, you may have to do something that feels deeply unfair and unreasonable.

Please grow up and play your part as well as you can. The same to all the other elderly posters on here. Your attitudes are terrible.

Post edited at 18:36
4
 Tom Valentine 16 Mar 2020
In reply to seankenny:

Being upset at being asked or told to do something which "feels deeply unfair and unreasonable" doesn't seem to me to be a terrible attitude. It seems perfectly normal. 

That's not to say that you are wrong in the rest of your post, but blanket criticisms are usually counter- productive.

Post edited at 19:02
 seankenny 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

You’re right they will be upset, but mostly I’m hearing spoilt and selfish man babies proclaiming the rules shouldn’t apply to them and they will gleefully break them. 
 

Post edited at 19:26
4
In reply to seankenny:

> Please grow up and play your part as well as you can. The same to all the other elderly posters on here. Your attitudes are terrible.

FFS we, or at least I, have been debating hypothetical situations in what I thought was an informal friendly forum.  Of course I will do what is being asked of me.  To suggest otherwise is extremely arrogant of you and offensive to me. My comments and complaints have been that to date the specifics have been very unclear for over 70's.  Before posting in this manner to me personally you may want to take time out to re-read the context of my comments.

Al

Post edited at 19:34
8
 Tom Valentine 16 Mar 2020
In reply to seankenny:

No you haven't heard anyone expressing glee at the prospect of not following the guidelines. Again, counter-productive.

 Dave the Rave 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Apparently you can go out for walks which is good news.

 seankenny 16 Mar 2020

In reply...

On this thread I’ve read:

why the hell should I abide with generic  advice

I'd rather catch the virus.

 it should be my personal decision to self isolate or not.

It's very "ageist" and dictatorial. 

Man. "They can f*ck off with their self-isolation!” ... That's the spirit!

This situation is awful for all of us. As I’ve said, some people are going to be really seriously affected. Would anyone like to find a lump on their testicle or breast today? Would you feel confident the NHS was going to give you the care you need? In that context, the comments I’ve read from old people on here are as depressing as spending a summer’s day in the house. 
 

I hope the elderly still keep a decent quality of life, and that we all get through this as safely as possible. We absolutely need broad programmes to ensure vulnerable people get the supplies they need. 

But old people have to play their part, and all I’m hearing is an unwillingness to do so.

1
 Graeme G 16 Mar 2020
In reply to seankenny:

If I can cheer you up I’ve just had a call from my brother. After much badgering and explaining of facts my mother has finally agreed that coming to live with us for a while will be in her, and others, best interests.

Not all old people are the same. 

 seankenny 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Graeme G:

Good on her. My 75 year old mum is being very stoic, whilst also understandably upset. 

In reply to seankenny:

You really are struggling to get this in context aren't you?  I said it could be considered ageist and dictatorial.  It's a discussion point. It still is for that matter, I thought that was what the forum was about. I have never suggested that I knew better or that I would not comply with any advice yet you singled me out and attacked me personally. You are well out of order.

2
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> All of these things are currently unclear

Almost all of those things have been addressed in this thread. Only you seem not to be taking any notice, and instead simply ranting at imagined issues.

You claim you're neither stupid nor selfish, but that's exactly how you are coming across.

4
 Graeme G 16 Mar 2020
In reply to seankenny:

I think we’re all trying to understand how with such low numbers of fatalities, so far, that this is such a big deal. My mum even said “how did we survive the war?”.  I had to remind her she’d been evacuated. So coming to live with us in the country is really no different. 

Post edited at 20:14
1
 seankenny 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> You really are struggling to get this in context aren't you?  I said it could be considered ageist and dictatorial.  It's a discussion point. It still is for that matter, I thought that was what the forum was about. I have never suggested that I knew better or that I would not comply with any advice yet you singled me out and attacked me personally. You are well out of order.

Al, you had the temerity to ask what the rest of us are doing. Isn’t facing a global recession and a drastic narrowing of our lives enough, given that we are doing it to keep the elderly (amongst others) alive? 
 

And before you feel picked on, I referred to man babies in the plural!

Post edited at 20:17
3
In reply to seankenny:

So, lets be clear, I took the trouble to look up the NHS help pages to try and understand what "self isolation" meant.  The advice was specific and suggested that individuals would be housebound, and separated from family and friends.  It even advised separate bedrooms for married couples. It also stated that deliveries should be left outside. This regime was to last for 14 days. At the time this thread started there had been no update to this advice but over 70's were being told to "self Isolate" i.e. presumably follow this advice. The whole point of my comments in this thread have been along the lines of suggesting that such a rigorous regime was both impractical and unreasonable for healthy people over a 4 month period. It's only now beginning to emerge that it may not be quite that harsh but I hardly see how raising rational questions makes me selfish and stupid.  If you want to keep your comments general might I suggest that you do not reply to an individual as you did with me.

Al

Post edited at 20:49
 seankenny 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

As I said, it’s scary and unpleasant for everyone. And I agree that t he way this has been introduced by the government has been incompetent and added to everyone’s stress. 
 

But there is another strand to the old guys’ posts which comes across as selfish and petulant. We get your fears, but perhaps you need to listen to ours - and to the very clear and reasoned arguments which outline why you might be at most at risk. And hence risking others. 

4
In reply to seankenny:

You appear to be willfully determined to misinterpret what I have said. It's you that is not listening to me.  You have bundled together responses from several quarters that are nothing to do with me and apportioned the motivations and intentions of all those individuals on to me personally.  If you respond to the thread that's one thing but you are replying to me as an individual. You are making a topic for discussion a matter of identity and a personal issue.  It may not be meant with malicious intent but can you not see the harm in this? 

3
 marsbar 16 Mar 2020
In reply to seankenny:

The badly handled leaking of the advice for over 70s to self isolate when what was actually meant was over 70s to social distance has caused this.  

It is reasonable for people to want to discuss the issue, and to have a bit of a moan.  It doesn't mean that everyone is being irresponsible.  

 Robert Durran 16 Mar 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> It is reasonable for people to want to discuss the issue, and to have a bit of a moan.  It doesn't mean that everyone is being irresponsible.  

I do have some sympathy with the over 70's venting their frustration. Already in my mid 50's I find myself wondering how many good summers I've got left in me before decline sets in. When I was younger, I just never thought that way. One year feels more valuable - more like two or three in my early twenties. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I know how you feel.  I've been out of action for almost two years.  I broke my ankle and had to have it operated on twice.  I no sooner recovered from that and I developed gall stones.  I had these removed a while since followed by my gall bladder 3 weeks ago so I am only now ready to get back into it and this happens. At almost 72 I think it is now highly unlikely that I will regain my previous form after such a long lay-off and it's not just physical.

Al

Clauso 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

I've already told my septugenarian parents to try and see the Covid-19 thing as an opportunity, rather than a calamity.

On the one hand they, and their cohort, may well die prematurely; but, on the other hand, they ought to try and see things as an opportunity for the nation to address the lack of a coherent social housing policy.

#Homeless for Lungless. 

Post edited at 22:00
1
 seankenny 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> I know how you feel.  I've been out of action for almost two years.  I broke my ankle and had to have it operated on twice.  I no sooner recovered from that and I developed gall stones.  I had these removed a while since followed by my gall bladder 3 weeks ago so I am only now ready to get back into it and this happens. At almost 72 I think it is now highly unlikely that I will regain my previous form after such a long lay-off and it's not just physical.

> Al

That’s a possibly sad end to your climbing life, and something to be mourned. The way it’s been presented to you is shockingly bad.

But the selfish attitudes of many of the older posters on here is part of a trend: everyone I’ve spoken to in recent days has lamented how their elderly relatives aren’t taking this seriously. Keep on climbing, keep on going to coffee mornings, keep on attending church. Complain like hell when anyone suggests otherwise. Meanwhile the rest of us are changing everything in order to reduce sickness and death. 

If you - and the other foolish old men posting on here - can’t see why we might be just a tad upset and frustrated, you deserve all the opprobrium thrown your way by several posters.

Post edited at 21:53
11
In reply to seankenny:

I can't see any excuse for turning serious, friendly discussions, especially amongst a group of people I considered kindred spirits, into personal insults. Ever. 

I see I'm still a foolish old man (another personal insult) in your eyes despite all my comments to the contrary.  I don't seem to be able to get through to you. Did you miss the bit where I said I would be self isolating or more accurately socially distancing myself.

Post edited at 22:19
 elsewhere 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Johnson's press conference today Monday is pretty clear. 12 weeks mentioned.

youtube.com/watch?v=xgwN1MzRGdA&

We might not like it but the virus does not care.

Post edited at 22:09
 seankenny 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Yes, someone has been rude on the internet. However you’ve been suggesting you should be exempt from rules we need to keep us safe in a national crisis, and so risk people’s lives. 
 

Abrasive wanker on the one hand. On the other, a potential menace to himself and others. 

I’m sorry that you feel insulted, but do you understand where I’m coming from? 
 

7
 wercat 16 Mar 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

was that in the same interview as telling us we were third in the world for testing behind China and Italy?.  If so I think we must be using funny tests, or he's telling funny stories

 Tom Valentine 16 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

Telling certain groups not to leave  the house "even to buy food" is going to worsen the panic buying that is already.happening.

 wercat 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

he's not tried walking in your shoes in any sense

In reply to seankenny:

No.  I will be socially distancing and said so in as many words previously but you continue to personally insult me.  Who is the  abrasive wanker really.  Here's a clue it's you.

Post edited at 22:24
1
 wercat 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I really can't see that you managing to get out again occasionally can't be accomplished whilst being careful to keep distance!

there's too much preciousness here.

On a general point that applies to all ages though,

ANYONE OF ANY AGE going climbing or scrambling or MTBing now needs to know that they are potentially placing themselves in a situation that might require resource consumption if they have a mishap.  So there is no one contemplating these activities who is not selfish to an extent at this time. Myself included.  I soloed a gully week before last, an immense effort comparable with reaching an Alpine summit after a chest problem I've acquired since end November.  But worth it, and before any of this talk of isolating age-groups.

If I did that now I'd be doing it knowing the potential pressure from a mishap on NHS resources would be of much greater proportions.

Post edited at 22:42
3
 elsewhere 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Telling certain groups not to leave  the house "even to buy food" is going to worsen the panic buying that is already.happening.

I suppose alternatively we could say carry on going out and let more people die. Which do you think is likely to be more appropriate?

1
 wercat 16 Mar 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

Too many imponderables to be certain how either course will run.   I am being careful as I am in my 60s but I can't self isolate with a teenager at school and who also works shifts in a busy cafe unless I rehouse myself.  Would you like to fund that?

Plus I'll continue to have to go out when necessary as we live > 5 miles from shops and services. 

Post edited at 22:34
Clauso 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Blimey... This thread seems to have gone off in an unexpected direction?

You're all very naughty boys. Calm down, before I get attracted to you and the pubs shut down. 

... When you're chewing on life's gristle... 

 seankenny 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> No.  I will be socially distancing and said so in as many words previously but you continue to personally insult me.  Who is the  abrasive wanker really.  Here's a clue it's you.

Yes of course I was referring to myself with that comment - thought that was obvious! Surprised you thought otherwise. 
 

Good luck with surviving whatever shit we have to go through.

1
Andy 1902 16 Mar 2020
In reply to russellcampbell:

Yes - in some ways I knew it would be thought 'wrong', so I'm surprised my comment has more likes than dislikes. I still stand by my views though even if you think I'm be self-righteous.

The good news is that when my Mum came for dinner last night I didn't have to bring the subject up - Mum was (as usual) well ahead of the game - church services going to be streamed online (Mum can still read the Reading (online) and they think the natter afterwards can be done using facetime) - walking club on Mondays is moving online too (apparently posting pics of your solo walk and then chatting on a conference call will suffice) and so on throughout the week.........

Go Mum, go Mum...!

When I asked her whether she thought things were worse than the war her reply was along the lines of - don't be silly, when the youngsters start running home to tell their mum's that the telegram boy is knocking on number 47 and later it is understood that there isn't going to be a funeral then it will be like the war, but for now I'll do what little I can to help stop things getting that bad.

 elsewhere 16 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

> Too many imponderables to be certain how either course will run.   I am being careful but I can't self isolate with a teenager at school and who also works shifts in a busy cafe unless I rehouse myself.  Would you like to fund that?

No I don't recall selling you any insurance cover for natural phenomena.

 seankenny 16 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

>who also works shifts in a busy cafe

On Friday you’ll remember writing that and say to yourself “that was the sort of thing we had, back on Monday”. 

 seankenny 16 Mar 2020

 > he's not tried walking in your shoes in any sense

In reply to wercat:

I actually wrote: That’s a possibly sad end to your climbing life, and something to be mourned.

On the other hand a close relative currently has a very compromised immune system and - he reckons - a 7% chance of death should he catch the virus. He’s 45 years old. 
 

Wanna borrow my shoes for a moment?

3
 FactorXXX 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Telling certain groups not to leave  the house "even to buy food" is going to worsen the panic buying that is already.happening.

"If possible" is a vital part of the statement that you seem to have missed out. 
 

 bonebag 16 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

With you 100% Jim. Well said. 

In reply to seankenny:

It's worth adding that I was already ahead of the game with social distancing.  I said on this or a similar thread several days ago that I would not go to the wall.  Too many dirty hands, too many dirty holds and a higher probability that many in there had recently visited northern Italy. I took this decision despite YOUNGER climbers on here saying they would carry on regardless so just stop your generalisations and personal attacks.

Post edited at 08:45
1
 elsewhere 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

An Italy, France, Spain etc style lock down for all ages looks increasingly inevitable based on the way things are moving.

 Tom Valentine 17 Mar 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

Sorry I got a reported version (BBC) . 

 seankenny 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Well done, that’s very sensible. 
 

I still think it would be wise for you and other posters to look back and try to understand why several posters reacted negatively to what you wrote. 

Post edited at 09:48
3
 wercat 17 Mar 2020
In reply to seankenny:

don't worry, I'm in my 60s with a cough I've had since the beginning of December which has apparently produced an asthmatic response.   Wife has been in bed for the last 7 days with fever for the first 6 days and a persistent cough.  Not been feeling too great either but as that has been since before Christmas I can live with it.

And glue ear, been very deaf since early december too!

ps in this village the only way I can get any really clean air is to drive a few miles and go for a walk as there are lots of smoky chimneys and wood burners making things worse, not to mention the burning of stuff like plastic and rubber on farms.

I hope your relative manages to stay safe - it is an extremely worrying time. 

Post edited at 10:09
In reply to seankenny:

I know why they reacted as they did.  They couldn't be bothered to read properly and in context and try to understand where I was coming from.  There is no defense for personal abuse,  End of!

Al

2
 MonkeyPuzzle 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

There's no defence for spelling "defence" "defense", or using "End of". End of.

1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Quite right but that's a bad case of pedantry you've got there.

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/defence-defense/

I blame it on laziness on my part and these bloody American spell checkers.  In my defence it's not as bad as "sending" routes though is it?

Al

Post edited at 10:20
1
 seankenny 17 Mar 2020
In reply to wercat:

Sounds grim - hope you and your wife get better and make it through this very hard time.

 seankenny 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> I know why they reacted as they did.  They couldn't be bothered to read properly and in context and try to understand where I was coming from.  There is no defense for personal abuse,  End of!

> Al

Perhaps we understood where you are coming from but thought you were gravely mistaken. Replies like this make you look intransigent and rather thin skinned. Some stranger called you a baby on a forum? Yes yes dear.

4
In reply to seankenny:

I prefer to think of myself as sensitive

Please provide evidence of intransigence.

Post edited at 10:42
3
 seankenny 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Just read the thread and think about how others took your words (and others’ words, but they appear to have left you to battle on alone). 
 

We know you are upset and the govt have treated you badly on this. But plenty of us got a feeling of a selfish and inconsiderate attitude in what you and others wrote... 

2
 fred99 17 Mar 2020
In reply to brianjcooper:

>There seems to be a belief that it is an old persons disease. Given enough time you might find out otherwise.     

I'm 64 !!

In reply to seankenny:

You are just plain wrong.  Please demonstrate where I was selfish and inconsiderate.  I don't recall threatening to not self isolate.  My objections were about what self isolation meant at that time.  My objections were to the lack of sensible, understandable, communication.  I note that the media is now using the word social segregation which is far less rigid and more sensible.  Various charities like Age Concern have raised exactly the same issues.  Are they being selfish and inconsiderate?

4
 fred99 17 Mar 2020
In reply to seankenny:

Why don't you self isolate - away from this forum.

I'm 64 - almost 20 years older than you. I've complained on here about youngsters "partying like there's no tomorrow" at St Patricks day - "youngsters" here includes people in your age group by the way - and I'm spending my time when not at work alone at home - effectively self isolating. However I AM going to go out for a walk occasionally, otherwise I will seize up. I AM also going to get food - assuming people younger than me haven't hovered up anything and everything, whether they need it or not.

Us older people know who's most likely to snuff it, so we're not going to take stupid risks, neither with our own selves or with others. In this epidemic it's a bl**dy certainty that a number of people I know in various aspects of my life - family, climbing, athletics officials and most likely the Vintage Motorcycle Club WILL DIE, not odd people, but an entire swathe of people.

So wind your neck in and stop going overboard just because someone you know MIGHT be about to die.

7
 seankenny 17 Mar 2020
In reply to fred99:

 

> I'm 64 - almost 20 years older than you. I've complained on here about youngsters "partying like there's no tomorrow" at St Patricks day - "youngsters" here includes people in your age group by the way - and I'm spending my time when not at work alone at home - effectively self isolating. However I AM going to go out for a walk occasionally, otherwise I will seize up. I AM also going to get food - assuming people younger than me haven't hovered up anything and everything, whether they need it or not.

I absolutely agree that youngsters shouldn't be out partying. It's grossly irresponsible. I also agree that panic buying is a failure - but actually a failure of the government to get a grip, to announce that supplies of food and other essentials will continue, and that it will work on ways to get those delivered to people who need them.

> Us older people know who's most likely to snuff it, so we're not going to take stupid risks, neither with our own selves or with others. In this epidemic it's a bl**dy certainty that a number of people I know in various aspects of my life - family, climbing, athletics officials and most likely the Vintage Motorcycle Club WILL DIE, not odd people, but an entire swathe of people.

I'm afraid that this is the new reality for ALL of us. And at the top of the thread the attitudes from many older men on this forum were that they would indeed take risks that the rest of us considered stupid, becasuse they do a bit of running or knock out a few routes down the wall. I certainly hope we are in agreement that such attitudes were and are deeply irresponsible.

A quick check amongst my social circle, and on social media, and on here, suggests that many, many older people were incredibly unresponsive to the first calls to limit their social interaction. Whilst clearly you are one of the sensible ones, huge numbers of people have not been sensible. Many of us have been busy turning our lives upsidedown, as our parents and others make no changes whatsoever. Hopefully that will change now. If you don't want to be perceieved as one of a selfish generation, then the people to talk to are those behaving selfishly, not those who raise the issue.

> So wind your neck in and stop going overboard just because someone you know MIGHT be about to die.

I'm afraid this is a deeply insensitive and stupid comment. This is not some kind of Death Top Trumps where we can outbid each other in fear and grief. Do two aged bikers beat one normally healthy middle aged guy if they pass away? Do we have to tot up our expected grief and the value of our fellow humans to calibrate our correct response? You see, you're being ridiculous.

But it's also totally counterproductive. The point is that we are all in this together. Some of us will suffer more than others - they will lose loved ones, or maybe see their entire livelihood destroyed. Their entire lives will be changed forever depending on what happens in the next few months. THIS is why there have been upset posters on this thread - the "I'm not going to bloody self-isolate!" brigade are a direct contradiction of the attitudes we need, as well as being a danger to us everyone. Like I say, hopefully the seriousness of this is beginning to sink in.

1
Moley 17 Mar 2020
In reply to fred99:

What you say is something that is only just starting to permeate through to many peoples brains (we are both 65-70 category), there is a lot of moaning about restrictions that in essence are inconveniences, some greater or smaller.

Ultimately many of us will die from this disease, that is a fact and there is nothing we can do about it. Except: take sensible precautions, listen to advice and keep away from other people who may be infected, for some people this won't be entirely possible but they must try and reduce the odds of catching as far as possible. Those who use their brains and think before doing something stupid "I don't care, I'm going down the pub anyway because I always do" will have a slightly better survival rate and the public blaming everyone else and finger pointing actually saves nobody.

 seankenny 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> You are just plain wrong.  Please demonstrate where I was selfish and inconsiderate. 

I was furious when I read this.  They are talking about isolating for 16 weeks. WTF, I'd rather catch the virus.

It's very "ageist"

To apply this rigorous regime to otherwise healthy people for a period of 4 months is verging on contravening peoples civil liberties, regardless of the context. (Note that I totally agree it is a massive loss of freedom, but I weight the context differently.)

Poster: I have met virtually and in real life seem be thinking a blitz spirit of carrying on as normal is going to work whilst the rest of us are royally ruining our lives to help them.

Apology accepted but would you care to give an example of what you are doing personally that is "royally ruining your life"? (This came across as totally inconsiderate for others' efforts and sacrifices.)

There were many other, more tw*tty comments by various old men, and yours were not the worst. But that last comment struck me as utterly insensitive. Do you see why you might upset people saying that?

> I don't recall threatening to not self isolate.  My objections were about what self isolation meant at that time.  My objections were to the lack of sensible, understandable, communication.  I note that the media is now using the word social segregation which is far less rigid and more sensible. 

I absolutely agree with you on all this. It has been incredibly badly handled by an incompetent administration, led by a man whose flaws were obvious yet ignored by millions of voters just a few months ago. We all need a clear outline of what we are supposed to do and how this is going to work.

3
In reply to seankenny:

What a strange interpretation to put om my remarks.  I got a sense that "royally ruining your life" was a little emotive.  Whats the problem with asking for an example, that could be construed as taking an interest.  I don't know what people are doing I'm self isolating. The original proposals as they were presented could be considered ageist.  Replace the words "Over 70's" with "Black" or "Homeosexual" to see what I mean.   I am sure you would not hesitate to use the words racist and or homophobic and with justification.

6
 MargieB 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Today it took me an hour to buy my modest amount of loo roll- actually only kitchen roll available by 9am! How can old people fight this or even stand. Separate shopping hours/days needed for them.

You might as well be throwing rice bags out of the back of an aeroplane!!!!! Thoughtless structuring to not think of the queues and separate the vulnerable.

 Harry Jarvis 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> The original proposals as they were presented could be considered ageist.  Replace the words "Over 70's" with "Black" or "Homeosexual" to see what I mean.   I am sure you would not hesitate to use the words racist and or homophobic and with justification.

Somewhat hyperbolic, I think. The original proposals were suggested as a way of protecting a vulnerable group. It is simply a matter of fact that as one grows older, one's immune system does not work as well as when younger. 

 MargieB 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

And food deliveries for some superstores are booked up for up to 3 weeks.By whom?? How about prioritising the elderly and vulnerable who can give proof of age. Most of us will be isolated for only 2 weeks but vulnerable people are in it for months. After average isolation of a family , most could go back to supermarket. The elderly and vulnerable can't. Poor structuring again.

Post edited at 13:47
In reply to MargieB:

I've just been to 3 supermarkets to do our normal fortnightly shop.  The shelves were bare.  At this rate I'm more likely to die from starvation than covid-19.  And before anyone gets on their moral high horse I'm just kidding.  But it will only get worse unless something is done.

 MonkeyPuzzle 17 Mar 2020
In reply to MargieB:

Never mind that, my monthly comic delivery from Forbidden Planet is late. I had to read a book last night. A book!

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Unfortunately something should have been done a while ago. Rationing needed to be introduced the moment it became evident there would be a lockdown, and strictly enforced. Sadly, like most demagogues, governing isn’t actually Johnson’s thing. He’s too busy fighting the civil servants whose job it is to model this kind of thing.

jcm

4
 mondite 17 Mar 2020
In reply to MargieB:

> Today it took me an hour to buy my modest amount of loo roll- actually only kitchen roll available by 9am! How can old people fight this or even stand. Separate shopping hours/days needed for them.

I am assuming the horders will have filled every spare space in the next week or so. At which point, assuming no catastrophe they will get bored and the shelfs will get refilled.

 brianjcooper 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

> I've just been to 3 supermarkets to do our normal fortnightly shop.  The shelves were bare.  At this rate I'm more likely to die from starvation than covid-19.  And before anyone gets on their moral high horse I'm just kidding.  But it will only get worse unless something is done.

During the fuel crisis many years ago we were told to 'fill up' only when necessary. So I complied. When I went to 'fill up' there was no fuel left. Sadly, we live in a selfish world and rationing might eventually have to be considered. I'm down to my last 10 bottles of Malt! 

Post edited at 15:04
 jkarran 17 Mar 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> But there is another strand to the old guys’ posts which comes across as selfish and petulant. We get your fears, but perhaps you need to listen to ours - and to the very clear and reasoned arguments which outline why you might be at most at risk. And hence risking others. 

It's worth bearing in mind the situation has changed radically even over the course of this thread. The early herd immunity plan, bungled or over ambitious as it was meant 2-500k younger people were being asked to give their lives for perhaps a million older people and a dented but essentially unreformed economy. 2 or three days later we've changed tack to buy time and prepare. The price is the 1000s of lives wasted by the delay and an economic cascade collapse we probably had coming anyway with plan a.

Now we're increasingly in the same boat hopefully we can pull together to figure out how the hell we save those millions of people we've stripped of their security so we might preserve ours.

Jk

Post edited at 15:23
5
 GrahamD 17 Mar 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Who have the government got to administer rationing for 60 plus million people ? We haven't got anywhere near enough civil servants to even administer post Brexit borders.

In reply to jkarran:

Apparently healthy over 70's now need not self isolate but should maintain social distance just like everyone else. Only those with underlying health issues now need to self isolate.  At least I think that is what the health secretary said.

Al

Post edited at 15:30
 Yanis Nayu 17 Mar 2020
In reply to brianjcooper:

As long as you’ve got your Ovaltine you’re grand. 

 brianjcooper 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> As long as you’ve got your Ovaltine you’re grand. 

 jon 17 Mar 2020
In reply to brianjcooper:

> During the fuel crisis many years ago we were told to 'fill up' only when necessary. So I complied. When I went to 'fill up' there was no fuel left. Sadly, we live in a selfish world and rationing might eventually have to be considered. I'm down to my last 10 bottles of Malt! 

Well that won't get you very far - a few miles at the most

 Yanis Nayu 17 Mar 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> The badly handled leaking of the advice for over 70s to self isolate when what was actually meant was over 70s to social distance has caused this.  

> It is reasonable for people to want to discuss the issue, and to have a bit of a moan.  It doesn't mean that everyone is being irresponsible.  

This. It’s a difficult time for everyone. Fear of dying, fear of relatives dying, fear of not being able to buy food or pay the rent or mortgage, fear of protracted isolation and loss of ability to do hobbies etc that ease the struggles of normal daily life. We all need to be kind, thoughtful and considerate to each other, now more than ever. 

 Timmd 17 Mar 2020
In reply to brianjcooper:

> During the fuel crisis many years ago we were told to 'fill up' only when necessary. So I complied. When I went to 'fill up' there was no fuel left. Sadly, we live in a selfish world and rationing might eventually have to be considered. I'm down to my last 10 bottles of Malt! 

Among the last 2 or 3 loaves of organic brown bread in Sainsburys today, I only took 1 and left the rest for next person, hopefully there's others who are doing that too.

 brianjcooper 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Among the last 2 or 3 loaves of organic brown bread in Sainsburys today, I only took 1 and left the rest for next person, hopefully there's others who are doing that too.

Nice one. Have a 'like'.

 The New NickB 17 Mar 2020
In reply to GrahamD:

> Who have the government got to administer rationing for 60 plus million people ? We haven't got anywhere near enough civil servants to even administer post Brexit borders.

Just get the shops to enforce, with a small amount of checking and the threat of a fine. You would get 90%+ compliance, which is more than sufficient.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Wow! Thanks for highlighting a personal problem that I have neglected: I have NO Ovaltine. I mean it, I am not exaggerating - I have *NO* Ovaltine! 

Let me just sit back at my computer whilst I ruminate on this serious error of my stock taking.

(I realise that this may mean I am in deep do-do.)

1
cb294 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Different rules for different age groups, as long as there is an obvious justification, is not ageist.

Usually it is the young, though, who are discriminated against, so your age group tends not to give a shit.

Voting age, pensions, driving licenses, prioritizing property value, ...

9
 Tom Valentine 17 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

Your comment about "your age group tends not to give a shit" is a perfect example of ageism. Unless you can back it up with some real evidence.

3
 Yanis Nayu 17 Mar 2020
In reply to John Stainforth:

I haven’t had Ovaltine since about 1978! I am however well-stocked with single malt whiskys...

In reply to Jim Nevill:

This thread is too long to read all but consider this. 

When/if medical facilities become overwhelmed, some method of filtering and prioritisation will have to be applied. 

Contributory negligence through ignoring advice may act against you here. 

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Ovaltine's about the last thing you 'need'. Whisky, though. Think about it: alcohol is one of the strongest germicidal (wrong word?) liquids. Seems like quite a good idea to be flushing one's alimentary canal with that, given that that's where COVID-19 strikes.

In reply to Timmd:

> Among the last 2 or 3 loaves of organic brown bread in Sainsburys today, I only took 1 and left the rest for next person, hopefully there's others who are doing that too.

Up here in Derbyshire the panic buying doesn't seem too bad, a lot of people are being quite sensible, and supermarkets are limiting the number of bars of soap etc that you can buy at a time. Over the last few weeks I've been gently stocking in moderation, esp. rice and pasta and various tins. Bread isn't a problem, in that they're still baking it each day in the supermarkets. You just have to get there early. But frankly, it's not necessary, and I'm fully prepared now not to have to go to the supermarket/s at all. My corner shop (very generous people) have said they will supply me with things like milk, eggs, beer and whisky each morning, as required, if I ring them up the evening before, and put in plastic container outside my front door. We haven't got to that yet, though I have bought the plastic container (2 quid from Poundland)

 Mr Lopez 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Your comment about "your age group tends not to give a shit" is a perfect example of ageism. Unless you can back it up with some real evidence.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/over_70s_self_isolate-716999

 Yanis Nayu 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It’s practically doctor’s orders...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Yup. I'll have to confess, it doesn't bother me. Because there's sweet FA that we can do about it except conduct our lives sensibly and carefully, and plan for all eventualities. I've seen it simply as an interesting, unavoidable challenge. So we just get on with it, preparing for the worst possible scenario, don't we? And then we can chill out, and take it as it comes. Also, also: we have to think about how we can help those who are less able. I suppose, realistically, we have to start with our immediate neighbours. That will be my next step now.

 Trangia 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Beer and Whisky each morning!?

You know how to live Gordon :}

 FactorXXX 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Ovaltine's about the last thing you 'need'. Whisky, though. Think about it: alcohol is one of the strongest germicidal (wrong word?) liquids. Seems like quite a good idea to be flushing one's alimentary canal with that, given that that's where COVID-19 strikes.

Best tell the relevant authorities because they've been treating COVID-19 as a respiratory disease.
No wonder it's getting so out of control...

In reply to Trangia:

Well, not quite each morning (that's when it would be delivered), but each evening, yes, perhaps.

As you say, life has to go on :}

In reply to FactorXXX:

> Best tell the relevant authorities because they've been treating COVID-19 as a respiratory disease.

Hang on. Surely the main point is that it affects only the lower respiratory system? So that anyone who's showing traditional cold symptoms is not in fact a risk at all. As I understand it, even the cough is not like a normal cough, but a very dry one, very deep in the throat. 

PS. I might have used the wrong expression with the alimentary canal, but I think it's correct because even I know that there's just one canal that does all that breathing and ingesting stuff.

Ok, I'm Googling to remind myself, and the Oesophagus and Trachea separate out ... need help here ...

Post edited at 22:18
 FactorXXX 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> PS. I might have used the wrong expression with the alimentary canal, but I think it's correct because even I know that there's just one canal that does all that breathing and ingesting stuff.

Blimey!

> Ok, I'm Googling to remind myself, and the Oesophagus and Trachea separate out ... need help here ...

I rather think you do...

In reply to FactorXXX:

Would my comment have worked if I'd just said Trachea (rather than a. canal)? I'm not a medic , but my point was that everyone has told us that this all happens from the back of the throat downwards, and not upwards.

Post edited at 22:37
 FactorXXX 17 Mar 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Would my comment have worked if I'd just said Trachea (rather than a. canal)? I'm not a medic , but my point was that everyone has told us that this all happens from the back of the throat downwards, and not upwards.

It would have worked beautifully if you hadn't used alimentary canal and had instead used respiratory system. 
Though how you flush the respiratory system with whisky is a different matter...

In reply to FactorXXX:

> It would have worked beautifully if you hadn't used alimentary canal and had instead used respiratory system. 

Ok, well thanks, fine. But let's talk about the subject of the argument rather than the technical words. And actually, I don't think 'respiratory system' is quite correct because the corona virus does NOT affect the upper respiratory system/tract, does it? That was my point.

1
cb294 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

Who ate all the pension cake? My generation has to foot the bill, paying much higher contributions for much lower returns. Who voted to f*ck up a future they wont even experience?

I am sick and tired of the special pleading by the retired generation.

CB

15
 Pete Pozman 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Andy 1902:

> Some of the replies remind me of those that thought Black Outs did not apply to themselves during the war. If the oldies have forgotten how to behave during a national crisis then shame on them.

Look, I am 68 and climb 6b, V3, but contrary to populist belief, my age group really wasn't there.

My dad fought all the way through the war, being 20 in 1939, but he would be 100 now if he were still alive. We are the kids running around the streets in Call the Midwife who became Mods, Rockers and Hippies. It's a false memory (apart from the 3 day week, the Winter of Discontent, the Thatcher riots, the Great Recession and Brexit.) Oh, and we definitely didn't sing the national anthem in cinemas... 

 Yanis Nayu 18 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

> Who ate all the pension cake? My generation has to foot the bill, paying much higher contributions for much lower returns. Who voted to f*ck up a future they wont even experience?

> I am sick and tired of the special pleading by the retired generation.

> CB

I’m not sure this is the appropriate time to bring this up. 

cb294 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Au contraire, it is precisely the time to bring this up. The entire thread is an example of the perverse entitlement that generation seems to feel.

How many 17 yos were politically active but denied a vote in the recent referendum and GE simply due to age? How many 16 yos would be more capable of driving cars than some of the tottering OAPs that haunt our streets?

Obviously, in both examples introducing some age cutoff makes sense (whether that needs to be 18 is a separate issue), so these teenagers pay the price for the perceived immaturity of their age mates, as considering every case individually would be impractical.

But of course, now that the boot is on the other foot the over 70s on this thread seem to demand precisely such case by case consideration. This chuzpah is staggering, especially when the issue is strategies to minimize the load on the intensive care system, something they will, simply due to biology, be more likely in need of anyway. It is simply perverse.

CB

5
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Well, yes and no. It’s difficult to avoid reflecting that just now probably wasn’t the best time to leave the European Medicines Agency, for instance, what with the whole of Europe pooling their resources to find a vaccine, and us being at the back of the queue along with Albania to receive it if and when they do.

jcm

3
 summo 18 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

> How many 16 yos would be more capable of driving cars than some of the tottering OAPs that haunt our streets?

Accident statistics suggest that there should probably be an increase..  males under 25 driving, the accident rate isn't good. 

In reply to cb294:

I'll let you know that, as a 70-year old, I completely accept the need for self-isolation. By which I mean, not taking part in communal events of any kind and staying at home as far as possible. But still going out walking, as long as I avoid coming into close proximity with others. I've now reduced the need to go shopping to zero, with several backup systems in place. My partner and I live 100 yds apart in the same street, so still see each other as we always did. To get from one house to the other is easy: it's a quiet street and one just picks a moment when the coast is clear. I.e. we're self-isolating as a unit.

 Tom Valentine 18 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

Do you think that 17 year olds would have been any less apathetic than the 36% of slack bastards in the next age group up who couldn't get off their arses to get to the polling station. That's a Brexit figure. Their turnout in the 2019 election was even worse.

And bear in that 40 % of over 65s actually voted to remain ( I suspect a lot more on here)

Post edited at 09:29
 Yanis Nayu 18 Mar 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I agree with that. We don’t need any bullshit getting in the way of global scientific and medical co-operation. I don’t think that inter-generational sniping is helpful at the moment though. 

cb294 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Tom Valentine:

As I said, I am reluctantly favour of age cutoffs, even if e.g. my own children certainly were debating about politics before that (and even were members of political organizations) and could not wait to be allowed to vote.

The only thing I ask for is the special pleading to stop when, for once, age based discrimination works the other way round. The whining gets on my nerves.

CB

3
 Tom Valentine 18 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

No special pleading from me: I don't know if I'm technically at risk or not but I'm taking as few chances as possible. 

 Robert Durran 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> My partner and I live 100 yds apart in the same street, so still see each other as we always did. To get from one house to the other is easy: it's a quiet street and one just picks a moment when the coast is clear. I.e. we're self-isolating as a unit.

That is all very well if you are self isolating thoroughly.

But I do wonder what others (of any age) with a partner/girlfriend/boyfriend living somewhere else are going to do. I'd like to bet that almost none of them are accepting that they are not going to spend any time with each other for the forseeable future (or put them selves into strict self-isolation so that they can). I'd also like to bet that some of them are among those zealots on here telling us we shouldn't go out hill walking on our own let alone do any climbing to try to preserve our sanity over the coming months.

1
 wercat 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

self insulation is a good idea at any age but more necessary as you get older

In reply to Robert Durran:

As I understand it, there is zero danger in going out walk/hill-walking, as long as one doesn't come into close proximity of others (one could still talk to them at a distance, I think ) Climbing might not be so safe with holds being contaminated.

cb294 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Sure, that makes sense, as long as there is not a full curfew as in parts of Austria.

CB

cb294 18 Mar 2020
In reply to summo:

Sure, I am all in favour of limiting the type of car beginners are allowed to drive! There is the old joke about an area a bit south that is so catholic that the only means of birth control is postnatal abortion by a combination of beer and a souped up Audi.

That said, yesterday I was almost mowed down by some old biddy in an enormous Mercedes SUV who had clearly seen me and had made eye contact, but still decided to pull out of her courtyard and plough across the cycle path.

Unfortunately the language I used means I cannot report her to the police....

CB

 fred99 18 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

> Au contraire, it is precisely the time to bring this up. The entire thread is an example of the perverse entitlement that generation seems to feel.

As opposed to the animosity to anyone older than yourself that you want to spout about ?

> How many 17 yos were politically active but denied a vote in the recent referendum and GE simply due to age? How many 16 yos would be more capable of driving cars than some of the tottering OAPs that haunt our streets?

How many 17-yr olds are completely naïve and are easily conned, and how many 16-yr olds are complete maniacs with no sense of the danger they cause ?

> But of course, now that the boot is on the other foot the over 70s on this thread seem to demand precisely such case by case consideration. 

Demanding ? It's the young who want to group TOGETHER to get pissed and have "fun", the old just want to go for a quiet walk ON THEIR OWN and not be treated worse than a convicted murderer and be given solitary confinement for life followed by a death sentence - hung over them on a daily basis rather than a set date.

5
 fred99 18 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

> That said, yesterday I was almost mowed down by some old biddy in an enormous Mercedes SUV who had clearly seen me and had made eye contact, but still decided to pull out of her courtyard and plough across the cycle path.

The idiot I was behind this morning veering across the road and using her rear view mirror to do her hair appeared to be in her early 20's. (I found this out when I crept past at some lights).

Idiots who should have their licences revoked (for life ?) come from all ages.

Gone for good 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> I haven’t had Ovaltine since about 1978! I am however well-stocked with single malt whiskys...

Good!! I'll nip round for a dram or two after I run out.

1
 Yanis Nayu 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Gone for good:

You’ve kept me well topped-up over the past couple of months!

 FactorXXX 18 Mar 2020
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Ok, well thanks, fine. But let's talk about the subject of the argument rather than the technical words. And actually, I don't think 'respiratory system' is quite correct because the corona virus does NOT affect the upper respiratory system/tract, does it? That was my point.

Your refusal to admit that you're wrong is quite extraordinary. 

 rogerwebb 18 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

> I am sick and tired of the special pleading by the retired generation.

> CB

The retired generation? What age range do you consider that to be? 

In reply to Jim Nevill:

Looks like the answer to my rhetorical question about whether all old people were this selfish is ‘an awful lot of them’.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/convincing-boomer-parents-to...

jcm

1
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Your refusal to admit that you're wrong is quite extraordinary. 

Eh? Right at the very beginning I said 'I might have used the wrong expression with the alimentary canal.' You then (surely mistakenly) said that I should have referred to the respiratory system when, actually, the upper respiratory system is not affected by the coronavirus. I'm not an expert, but simply repeating what I've been told/learnt. Anyhow, the exact terminology we use is much less important than the ramifications of the virus.

cb294 19 Mar 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

Currently, and here, 65 plus, even though quite a few go earlier with minor deductions.

I will be lucky if I can leave my job at 69 without taking a massive hit to my state pension, despite having paid MUCH higher contributions throughout my working life, kind of proving my accusation that the boomers have eaten the entire cake.

CB

3
 marsbar 19 Mar 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I tend to think of it as in denial rather than selfish.  It is a problem.  

 wercat 19 Mar 2020
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm sorry to say that a good many of the squanderbugs I saw yesterday filling their trolleys sky high might have been early Boomers.  It really was a pretty unpleasant spectacle.   Getting food in is beginning to be a revolting experience.

However, I don't think it is age-related at all, just certain types of people.

Post edited at 09:22
 Phil1919 19 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

Traditional retirement and pension provision would seem to be one of the many things that we might see changing. 

 rogerwebb 19 Mar 2020
In reply to cb294:

> Currently, and here, 65 plus, even though quite a few go earlier with minor deductions.

That is a huge age range that you are condemning . Amongst people I know 31 years. I note that according to your profile you are 49. I think an 18 year old would be surprised to find themselves located in the same generation as you and likewise I suspect that you don't see yourself as in the same generation as an 80 year old. Casually assuming that all people in such a wide demographic are well off and well set up leads to prejudice against many of the more vulnerable members of our society who often live in quite straightened circumstance.

I don't think that my great aunt (96), parents in law (late 80s) aunt and uncle (80) or any members of their generations 'ate the cake'

> I will be lucky if I can leave my job at 69 without taking a massive hit to my state pension, despite having paid MUCH higher contributions throughout my working life, kind of proving my accusation that the boomers have eaten the entire cake.

I think you look with rose tinted spectacles at the past. Some people lucked out, mostly those in the public sector and large companies with solid pension schemes. Others did not. The big divide it seems to me is between those who have guaranteed pensions and those who do not whatever generation they are in. There are plenty of poor baby boomers, I meet them often through my work (legal aid).

(I understand your rant though. It's one I have made myself, 'public sector fat cats...' but I think it is  unreasonable to blame someone for their sensible choices or good luck)

Post edited at 09:52
1
cb294 19 Mar 2020
In reply to rogerwebb:

The 18 year olds have the same demographic problem that I have (51, need to update my profile).

However, my generation is being asked to support the comparatively generous state pensions (here in Germany) of the boomer generation, since they "have paid in all their lives" with increased contributions (relative to their low contributions, WWII had made sure there were not that many pensioners they had to support). At the same time we will both have to work longer, and will accrue lower pension entitlements per Euro paid in.

I would be happy to pay more if the current pensioners had shouldered their part of the demographic load by reducing the growth of their current pensions. Fat chance, instead pensions were adjusted according to the development of gross income, i.e. before our massively increased pension contributions were deducted.

So f*ck them, and the conservative party they largely vote for.

CB

5
 jkarran 19 Mar 2020
In reply to fred99:

> Demanding ? It's the young who want to group TOGETHER to get pissed and have "fun", the old just want to go for a quiet walk ON THEIR OWN and not be treated worse than a convicted murderer and be given solitary confinement for life followed by a death sentence - hung over them on a daily basis rather than a set date.

If people comply with timely and appropriate restrictions the overwhelming majority will live through this to rebuild.

If we don't then well over a million of us are likely to die unnecessarily, not solely the old and infirm but lots of healthy younger folk too and that's just of the virus there will be many more through lost availability of care and essential services, whether that's basic social care of for routine emergencies like appendicitis, accidents, complicated pregnancies, treatable chronic conditions... the list goes on. That's before the secondary complications a death rate like that implies will bring. Our position in the world is very very precarious right now. You might have to forgive those for whom that penny has dropped a degree of shortness with those for whom it hasn't yet. It's totally understandable for a whole host of reasons that people don't get it but it is not sustainable that goes unchallenged.

jk

 Darron 19 Mar 2020
In reply to Jim Nevill:

Any one who is still complacent about the current crisis should be directed to reports of what is happening in Italy.

People dying on their own in hospital (funeral directors picking up patients possession from the outside of the tent where they died). Corpses in houses for 2 days. Not enough coffins. People buried/cremated alone as family not allowed to attend.

One funeral director in Bergamo reported 600 dead for his business since 1st March. He described it as a generation lost in 2 weeks. We have not heard talk like that since WW1.

If you are complacent: Do you have elderly parents/grandparents? Do you know know anyone with an underlying condition? Do you not care?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but we are not experts. I see no option but to throw our lot in with the experts and hope they are right.

STOP GOING TO PUBS AND RESTAURANTS!

1
 Tom Valentine 19 Mar 2020
In reply to seankenny:

You need to take a look at the "Is climbing banned " thread.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...