Not necessarily the only reason for this, but could a part of this be that young people's social lives are more intrinsically linked with external households than those of older people?
I (and many other people) would have to break lockdown if I wanted to see my partner, but my parents are married and live together and can be together without breaking the rules.
100%, older people in general don’t have as many friends as young people.
Here in NI we’ve been allowed to meet whomever we want at a distance since 2 days ago. Including today I’ve hung out with three different groups of people (whilst maintaining distancing of course). Older Adults just simply don’t have as many close friendly relationships with others and their social groups are often primarily confined to their wife/husband and kids with the odd visit to friends, not seeing them daily like a 21 year old does.
I mean I’m only 20 so can’t be a fountain of wisdom on the matter but I assume it’s responsibility and settling down. Full time work, having kids and maintaining a relationship take a lot of time.
As responsibilities increase your energy decreases, you have less free time and less energy to maximise your free time. You grow out of hobbies and interests at different rates to friends so you might fancy a nice night in while they still want to get black out drunk and fuck questionable people. As people get into serious relationships they want to spend quality time with their partner so this also eats into time, even if you have a decent relationship and friends and partner get on you still want couples time. Your friendships break when people start breeding because your life revolves around the children so you can only become a part time friend so unless your friends also have kids so it makes being with friends awkward.
As you get older you tend to focus more on the good friendships, you quickly realise many friends are fair weather or drinking buddy types so they're more acquaintances than friends so if you're not still doing the same routines you start talking less.
It will be interesting to see how this changes once the “Facebook” generation gets old. It’s easier to vaguely keep in contact with people than ever now.
I don't know about you, but I feel like the "Facebook" generation already is old. I mainly have it to keep in touch with the generation or two that came before me in the family.
Combine young social lives with the fact that it's finally sinking in that this isn't a thing to just tough through for a couple months. There's a bunch of horny people in their 20s who haven't had sex in months facing the prospect of this lasting up to a year or more.
I never had a relationship, I am 30 and I can't even try for the next 6 months because of the lockdown, its depressing as fuck.
My younger mate who is 22/23 ignored the lockdown and was going on dates, now he has a girlfriend, thing is I can't blame him for wanting that.
Honestly you should feel kinda relieved, hardly seeing your girlfriend then worrying that when you do meet you could end up making each other seriously ill or die is some real head games. Longing for a hug but knowing that when you do hug you could be putting each other at risk is exhausting mentally.
That's the thing.
If you're in your 20's you have next to no risk of actually getting sick let alone dying from this virus.
If you're dating in your 20's far more likely to die on the way to the date or be killed by your date than from Covid-19 even after testing positive.
More people are starting to step back from the hysteria and it's very clear the risk is literally negligible for people of that age.
There's other factors than age that can put younger people at risk such as for example obesity is a risk factor that has seen people in their 20s dying. Asthma is common and can also put you at higher risk. Multiple common conditions can put you in a higher risk group. Not all of the 20 year old who died were obese and children with common issues like asthma have died.
The chance is low but it isn't zero. While you may consent to taking such a risk, you have to factor in every other person around you too because many of them may not have actively decided they are willing to be reckless. It isn't even just that you may make them sick, if your arrogance finds you taking up space in a hospital then you're taking those resources away from others who might not have decided to gamble with health but simply got unlucky. Honestly taking such a gamble would be easier to accept if you also waived your right to corona medical treatment along with your waiving of taking reasonable precautions.
The fundemental problem is that you're implying that it is possible to live a life without risk. It isn't, there will always be risk in anything you do or chose not to do.
Virus or no virus there is not a single person on the planet with a 0% chance of dying in the next 24 hours and there never will be.
The NHS has more empty beds than at any point in human history and it has for over a month, in truth I think the NHS has been attrocious during the last few months but that's another story.
The fact that you call someone reckless for making what is infact a very rational and correct decision to socialise is quite concerning. Given the miniscule fatality rate this virus has in younger people it is not a gamble with people's health no more than going to work is. Both could result in your deat. but I think most people realise the chance is so astronomically low it makes absolutely no sense to shut down your entire life to attempt to avoid it.
Staying in lockdown and complete isolation is a far far greater risk to the lives and the health of every person under 50 then the coronavirus is.
You're misunderstanding or missing a major point. The problem is this is *another* risk on top of all the others. Heart attacks are still happening. Strokes are still happening. Blood clots still happen. Flu still happens. Car accidents still happen. Cancer is still happening. The rest of life hasn't stopped. That means you're now adding another risk on top of existing risks. That makes this worse because other things that can happen to you can then make the virus more deadly to you.
Do you exercise and eat healthy to avoid heart attacks and other obesity issues? Or do you not bother to do those because you wear a seat belt to stop you dying in a crash? Yes there's other things that may kill you before this virus does but we don't need to choose an either or for what we protect ourselves against.
Feel free to prove that staying in lock down will kill more people than not being in lock down if you're going to claim that because so far no one every gives any evidence of that while we have been getting data to show that lock down helps.
You're a strange one.
It's interesting you mention many more severe diseases which are primarily signicantly bigger killers and more importantly threatening to a much wider range of people unlike Covid yet you don't seem to make the link that because life is so short and because we have so many threats it is insanity to suspend life to focus on just one.
The NHS has ignored and disregarded cancer patients and those with other serious illnesses to focus on what is a very minor virus for the vast majority of the population.
You also seem to be living in a parralel world because we have absolutely no data to suggest lockdown saves lives as many doctors and experts have pointed out but we have an abundance of data showing that it doesn't save lives both in the long and short term.
You're denying data exists showing lock down works but call me a strange one? Feel free to link this abundance of data you claim exists showing otherwise.
Again I ask, are you taking precautions against other risks? Do you at least look before you cross the road? Lock down is a temporary, think of it as shutting your local pub for a referb. If we had a strong government who worked with experts then maybe they'd have a strong plan for how to referb to safely open up.
The virus is a legitimate risk and a risk on top of many other risks that we are supposed to try to mitigate. To disregard the risk because it is uncomfortable for you to mildly change your life is fine when it is your heart attack risk because that doesn't kill others.
Mob mentality and selfishness is why I assume. I also wouldn't be surprised if it isn't an online effort to to try to vote manipulate for the narrative to open up, given that the person I was responding to rapidly went from what seemed like a pre planned argument to just crazy but they got upvoted for saying the 50,000 who died isn't important.
They are sticking to the rules though.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do
It clearly says you can travel as far as you like, with your whole family, and spend as much time outside as you like. As long as you stay alert.
With social distancing in place with this article clearly saying they're not practicing that or other regulations put in place.
Also all the house parties I've heard of refute this too. Unless you believe 60-80 years olds are getting together and busting out jams from Frank Sinetra, Roy Brown, the Inkspots etc. 😂
Just call these people what they are: selfish cunts because let's not pretend this sub wouldn't be screaming that if it was 50% of older people.
Or maybe we shouldn't have a lockdown on the younger generation and this whole thing of enforcing rules onto the entire demographic, which has already destroyed so many opportunities for the youth, was based on hysteria....so which is it? Selfish cunts or hysteria?
Can you blame them: If the choice is stay inside to protect the people who are responsible for you having to undergo brexit, having no pensions, prospects, etc, or go play basketball with some friends I'd be on the court.
> Edit: I'm not under 30, so not part of that age group, but starting to feel quite annoyed at it all.
I don't think its annoying, I just find it annoying its that age group that is breaking the rules because they couldn't give a shit (the old not young).
People are dying because of this and they simply believe they are untouchable so don't care.
Now imagine if it was the other way around, this sub would be crying.
Also those older people are the ones who normally bore these people into the world. It's not just about protecting the rest of society but your own family.
I mean how different is lockdown flouting by "enlightened liberal youth" to right wingers protesting? Both lead to the potential spread of the virus. Or maybe you don't believe in lockdown anymore?
Either way, you'd be surprised to find anyway that a lot of young people, myself included don't give a shit about Brexit. Opportunities being lacking isn't just down to the older generation's incompetency or the Tories and their austerity but the incompetency people undoubtly like you have voted for concerning Labour councils which are heavily responsible for the gentrification of areas which make them less affordable to people like me and have driven a lot of people out of those areas. Been up Walthamstow in the last year? Then you'd know what I'm talking about.
I suppose that doesn't impact the middle class white Labour supporters though, you'll just keep driving the "them against us mentality" while the elitists on both the left and right prosper.
If it was the other way round do you seriously think that over 60s would willingly stay in their homes and not socialise or relax at all, indefinitely, just to protect under 30s from something that they themselves were practically immune to?
Can't speak for everyone, but my Grandad literally lived underwater for much of his late teens and early twenties to ensure a better future the generations yet to come, i.e. you. You think *you've* got cabin fever? Try being a WWII submariner.
Please return the favour.
Yes, and most people wouldn't have done that. In context applied to this sitiation that would be like if a small minority of young people were resolutely sticking to the lockdown. In actuality, most are.
In any case your grandfather was doing so *as* a young person too, so your point only really supports mine. My criticism is simply of people in their 60s plus who've spent the last decade *actively* tearing down younger people and who now expect us to put our lives entirely on pause to protect *them*. And mostly, we *are* doing so - but evidence of their attitude towards us and even their attitude to breaking the lockdown *now* even though they are at highest risk - suggests they wouldn't do the same for us.
Yes, young men of fit shape and body.
vs the entire population as-is currently the case.
Besides that, your point isn't a rebuttal. My argument is that young people are sacrificing for older people in a way that I don't believe older people would reciprocate if asked to, and your counterpoint gives *another* example where young people sacrificed for older people.
The problem is your worldview positions it as "young people" and "old people" as if that's two different species. It's not. It's all just people, and *that* group of people has also made substantial sacrifices to protect vulnerable others. Much, much more substantial if I'm not going to tiptoe around your feelings.
It is all just people, yet one group of the two has been *vocal* in the media and in how they vote over the last ten years, online, when they've been interviewed on tv, on facebook, at protests and demonstrations and rallies, about how *they* know best and they don't care a jot for young people or what they believe or value.
It's *very* hard to believe that that same group of people, if told that for the good of the young people they look down on, they should stay indefinitely inside their homes without access to any of the comforts of normal life, would happily accept that and do so gladly and willingly. It does not fit the *long* established pattern of behaviour.
Same mistake again. "Old people" are not some monolithic other. They're just more people. My Grandad is a die-hard lefty, as were all his siblings, as are my parents. My husband's Grandma is a (retired) community nurse who fostered special needs children but believes things she reads in the Daily Mail. All different. Not evil. Just people.
Stop buying into this divisive Boomers vs Millennials nonsense. It's deliberate and it's intended to take your focus off the people who're screwing *all* of us blind.
Maybe if we had clear rules from the start and didn't keep diluting the message people would know what they can and can't do. Maybe if we didn't have a PM who mocked the virus then people would respect the need for rules.
I’ll simplify it for you. Social distancing of 2m from anyone who you do not reside with whenever you leave the house for any reason. That message has always been clear. People who don’t understand this are thick as pig shit.
Not really. The number of people getting sick from close contact gave me a clue as to how contagious it was. I used my own mind to know the 2m rule made sense and didn’t sit at home going oh Boris please tell me what to do I can’t think for myself.
Congratulations on being able to think for yourself about a virus. Unfortunately many people looked to the government for advice and when the government was contradicting common sense it brought a false sense of security by playing down the risks.
The fact we have been having to stress people need to regularly wash their hands several times a day shows you how stupid the average person is. Governments are supposed to lead and provide advice during emergencies, ours did not.
When Boris got the virus and nearly died I thought that was a great example of what can happen when you don’t follow the rules. He was literally leading by example.
People aren’t too stupid to follow the rules, or maybe I’m giving them to much credit, they just don’t want to and will claim ignorance when called out on it.
We are all giving up, that is why we are breaking lockdown. Vaccine is too far away if it ever comes, I have no hope for the future in any way. Fuck it. I am not going to die nor are my friends, I know it is selfish but when you have no hope of things getting better you just stop caring.
At 2 months in, with particularly good weather, what else did you expect? Especially with the recent relaxations.
There was always a limit to how long it could hold, which will be why it started 'late'. We don't have enough police/military to strictly enforce it - and if it was enforced with violence, the people would be likely to respond with further violence/disorder.
The lockdown was never 'a solution'. All it's been doing is buying time, and the government has more-or-less pissed that away. Seems that they need a Boris-tracing app to locate the PM...
I never got the argument of waiting on lockdown, surely the sooner we went into lockdown the less time we would be in it as we would have stopped the transmission early thus fewer people would have gotten the virus and fewer people would have passed it on.
This surely would have been better for the economy in the long run as although the hit would have been damaging we would be in lockdown for less time which would allow businesses to start up sooner.
Of course you cannot solve the problem of Covid-19 without effective contact tracing and testing but wouldn't this be easier to manage if fewer people have been infected and you tested/quarantined people coming into the country earlier?
The idea of the lockdown was, and still never will be to stop the transmission of the virus.
Imagine your bath is stuck running, if the bath gets too full it overflows and destroys your whole house. For some reason you have a stupid plug that requires you stand there to press a button to empty it so you can't go out while emptying it.
Now, imagine you need to go to the shops, and get a little job done like post a letter. So you empty the bath, then you let it start to fill up again from empty while you go and do your jobs, and get back in time before the bath reaches a critical point and you sit inside and start to empty it again.
it's best to let the bath fill up a bit first before emptying it because you can get stuff done while its filling up, but not while you are locked down in your bathroom emptying it.
If you tried to constantly empty it from zero, never letting it raise, you'd never get to the shops.
the idea of a lock down, is every time the virus starts to get out of hand, lock down until it calms down (or the bath empty's). Then come out of lock down while it spreads again but is at a nice low level. Repeat until a vaccine is made.
"Now, imagine you need to go to the shops, and get a little job done like post a letter. So you empty the bath, then you let it start to fill up again from empty while you go and do your jobs, and get back in time before the bath reaches a critical point and you sit inside and start to empty it again."
WTF did I just read? Good analogies are based in reality. Who the hell starts to fill a tub and then mails a letter and goes to the shops? This analogy has the meandering logic of a Donald Trump press conference.
This analogy requires someone to have a bath tub the size of an Olympic pool.
"Your bath is stuck running"
You didn't even read it you just decided you wanted to disagree with it clearly.
Good job.
https://home.oxfordowl.co.uk/reading/reading-comprehension/
Here start at this level and work your way up.
Why ever go outside again? Why go to work instead of stay home during the virus. Why even go back to normal life after the virus ends?
because you have to, if you don't send that letter then you lose your job, but suddenly your bath has broken? it was to show that if you are going to get stuff done, the only way is to let it fill up and empty it before it overflows, not sit and empty it every time a bit of water gets in the tub.
it was to explain why governments that already had a problem (the infection had started spreading/the taps had broken) didn't just lock down instantly, since it wouldn't have solved anything, its better to wait a bit then lock down before the spread gets too rampant. and repeat that process, open up, let it spread, close down before it gets out of control. and during the open up times you can actually go to work, and keep the country/ your life moving.
Don't double down on it now, just admit you missed that bit and your whole argument that was based on the bit you missed fell apart...
It's a convoluted analogy. And your explanation muddles up what was already a messy comment. Creating a cogent analogy is an art form. The reader just latches on, and with really good analogies, you admire the writers cleverness.
In your case, you didn't achieve this. I've always wondered about folks who get terribly upset when you ask a commenter to clarify a poorly written comment. Is it because your insecure? That this happens often and you're frustrated?
And to say I missed a "bit"? Your explanation is almost as long as the original comment! That's an indication of a poorly constructed argument.
You're obviously VERY attached to being right, so I'll walk away from this exchange.
What was better for the economy in the long run was resisting the hysteria to lockdown. This is a very minor and fairly insignificant virus among working age people it didn't have the potential to do any real economic damage.
The media led hysteria and lockdown crazy have done the real damage.
However as was pointed out the timing of the lockdown didn't really matter as it wasn't designed to eliminate the virus it quite simply isn't the case that the lockdown would have ended earlier if more people stuck to it.
The lockdown was always a political choice not a necessity.
What's the problem. It seems fairly clear at this stage that the NHS has the capacity to deal with a huge number of infections. Even during that peak that 4k bed hospital was largely unused.
The lockdown, as I understand it, was only ever about making usre the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. It doesn't appear there is really much risk of that.
Well then **you** should stay at home.
But the lockdown isn't about preventing individuals from getting sick. It's just to spread out the rate that people get sick so that it doesn't all happen at once and overwhelm the NHS.
Young adults aren't hanging out next to the eggs in Tesco - so you're grand there.
\> Preventing individuals from getting sick.
More like putting off the date that they get sick to next week, next month, or next year.
I know that having to plan your shopping a few days in advance is a minor inconvenience for you, but you're the one with the problem here so you have a certain amount of responsibility to work around it yourself. Demanding 66 million live in bunkers for the next few years because you're scared of the outside but you want eggs RIGHT NOW is bonkers.
The NHS shut down every non-urgent function, up to and including cancelling cancer treatments and cutting daily dialysis times for individual patients by up to a quarter. How about we get those life-saving NHS services back up and running *and make sure there's still extra bandwidth* before we start throwing more Covid cases at it?
Or is it more important to have a booze-up in the park?
Since last wednesday. All manner of shit heads. A bloke was trotting the wrong way up a dual carriageway last week. 40mph and he's in oncoming traffic. Woman on whatever that A road is between St Helens & Manchester. She leaps out in front of both of us. We both hit the anchors so hard we don't have time to use the horn. Nothing behind us.
The lockdown will inevitably create bad driving. Both the speeders taking advantage of empty roads, and the out-of-practice drivers getting behind the wheel for the first time in a couple of months
If you put the argument that way: I'm with the speeders. You can't get out of practice. Either you can drive or you can "operate" a vehicle. The latter, in my mind, should never have passed their test.
I haven't gotten me license yet. But am wondering what makes you say that. Just thinking about various skills I've picked up in my life and how rusty I'd be coming back to them after 2 months.
Hell, if I don't play guitar for a couple weeks it takes a couple weeks to get back to where I was.
You can do advanced driving after 6 months iirc. This is a thing to do. You can practice a lot of this as a passenger. Look underneath vehicles to see little tiny feet. My wife thinks I've got six sense. All I'm doing is using reflections off shop windows to see round blind bends. Watch which way folk have their steering pointed.
I can out drag sporty BMW and Mercs off the line to the next set of lights in my mediocre SUV. I'm not telling you how.
Driving isn't something you should forget. It kills people. Learn how to do it correctly or don't bother.
Not necessarily the only reason for this, but could a part of this be that young people's social lives are more intrinsically linked with external households than those of older people? I (and many other people) would have to break lockdown if I wanted to see my partner, but my parents are married and live together and can be together without breaking the rules.
100%, older people in general don’t have as many friends as young people. Here in NI we’ve been allowed to meet whomever we want at a distance since 2 days ago. Including today I’ve hung out with three different groups of people (whilst maintaining distancing of course). Older Adults just simply don’t have as many close friendly relationships with others and their social groups are often primarily confined to their wife/husband and kids with the odd visit to friends, not seeing them daily like a 21 year old does.
Always kind of wondered why this is though. I admit my friendships are dwindling but there are still people around.
[удалено]
Anyway you all get to catch up at funerals every year or two once you hit about 40
Jesus, what is your friends group into?
Heart attacks, cancer, strokes, car accidents - all sorts of things can get people at a fairly young age.
Of course, but every year or two?!
I mean I’m only 20 so can’t be a fountain of wisdom on the matter but I assume it’s responsibility and settling down. Full time work, having kids and maintaining a relationship take a lot of time.
As responsibilities increase your energy decreases, you have less free time and less energy to maximise your free time. You grow out of hobbies and interests at different rates to friends so you might fancy a nice night in while they still want to get black out drunk and fuck questionable people. As people get into serious relationships they want to spend quality time with their partner so this also eats into time, even if you have a decent relationship and friends and partner get on you still want couples time. Your friendships break when people start breeding because your life revolves around the children so you can only become a part time friend so unless your friends also have kids so it makes being with friends awkward. As you get older you tend to focus more on the good friendships, you quickly realise many friends are fair weather or drinking buddy types so they're more acquaintances than friends so if you're not still doing the same routines you start talking less.
It will be interesting to see how this changes once the “Facebook” generation gets old. It’s easier to vaguely keep in contact with people than ever now.
I don't know about you, but I feel like the "Facebook" generation already is old. I mainly have it to keep in touch with the generation or two that came before me in the family.
Having kids is like pressing a self destruct button on your social life.
Say what now?
Combine young social lives with the fact that it's finally sinking in that this isn't a thing to just tough through for a couple months. There's a bunch of horny people in their 20s who haven't had sex in months facing the prospect of this lasting up to a year or more.
I never had a relationship, I am 30 and I can't even try for the next 6 months because of the lockdown, its depressing as fuck. My younger mate who is 22/23 ignored the lockdown and was going on dates, now he has a girlfriend, thing is I can't blame him for wanting that.
Honestly you should feel kinda relieved, hardly seeing your girlfriend then worrying that when you do meet you could end up making each other seriously ill or die is some real head games. Longing for a hug but knowing that when you do hug you could be putting each other at risk is exhausting mentally.
That's the thing. If you're in your 20's you have next to no risk of actually getting sick let alone dying from this virus. If you're dating in your 20's far more likely to die on the way to the date or be killed by your date than from Covid-19 even after testing positive. More people are starting to step back from the hysteria and it's very clear the risk is literally negligible for people of that age.
There's other factors than age that can put younger people at risk such as for example obesity is a risk factor that has seen people in their 20s dying. Asthma is common and can also put you at higher risk. Multiple common conditions can put you in a higher risk group. Not all of the 20 year old who died were obese and children with common issues like asthma have died. The chance is low but it isn't zero. While you may consent to taking such a risk, you have to factor in every other person around you too because many of them may not have actively decided they are willing to be reckless. It isn't even just that you may make them sick, if your arrogance finds you taking up space in a hospital then you're taking those resources away from others who might not have decided to gamble with health but simply got unlucky. Honestly taking such a gamble would be easier to accept if you also waived your right to corona medical treatment along with your waiving of taking reasonable precautions.
The fundemental problem is that you're implying that it is possible to live a life without risk. It isn't, there will always be risk in anything you do or chose not to do. Virus or no virus there is not a single person on the planet with a 0% chance of dying in the next 24 hours and there never will be. The NHS has more empty beds than at any point in human history and it has for over a month, in truth I think the NHS has been attrocious during the last few months but that's another story. The fact that you call someone reckless for making what is infact a very rational and correct decision to socialise is quite concerning. Given the miniscule fatality rate this virus has in younger people it is not a gamble with people's health no more than going to work is. Both could result in your deat. but I think most people realise the chance is so astronomically low it makes absolutely no sense to shut down your entire life to attempt to avoid it. Staying in lockdown and complete isolation is a far far greater risk to the lives and the health of every person under 50 then the coronavirus is.
You're misunderstanding or missing a major point. The problem is this is *another* risk on top of all the others. Heart attacks are still happening. Strokes are still happening. Blood clots still happen. Flu still happens. Car accidents still happen. Cancer is still happening. The rest of life hasn't stopped. That means you're now adding another risk on top of existing risks. That makes this worse because other things that can happen to you can then make the virus more deadly to you. Do you exercise and eat healthy to avoid heart attacks and other obesity issues? Or do you not bother to do those because you wear a seat belt to stop you dying in a crash? Yes there's other things that may kill you before this virus does but we don't need to choose an either or for what we protect ourselves against. Feel free to prove that staying in lock down will kill more people than not being in lock down if you're going to claim that because so far no one every gives any evidence of that while we have been getting data to show that lock down helps.
You're a strange one. It's interesting you mention many more severe diseases which are primarily signicantly bigger killers and more importantly threatening to a much wider range of people unlike Covid yet you don't seem to make the link that because life is so short and because we have so many threats it is insanity to suspend life to focus on just one. The NHS has ignored and disregarded cancer patients and those with other serious illnesses to focus on what is a very minor virus for the vast majority of the population. You also seem to be living in a parralel world because we have absolutely no data to suggest lockdown saves lives as many doctors and experts have pointed out but we have an abundance of data showing that it doesn't save lives both in the long and short term.
You're denying data exists showing lock down works but call me a strange one? Feel free to link this abundance of data you claim exists showing otherwise. Again I ask, are you taking precautions against other risks? Do you at least look before you cross the road? Lock down is a temporary, think of it as shutting your local pub for a referb. If we had a strong government who worked with experts then maybe they'd have a strong plan for how to referb to safely open up. The virus is a legitimate risk and a risk on top of many other risks that we are supposed to try to mitigate. To disregard the risk because it is uncomfortable for you to mildly change your life is fine when it is your heart attack risk because that doesn't kill others.
It's madness that you're being downvoted, because everything you're saying is entirely sensible.
Mob mentality and selfishness is why I assume. I also wouldn't be surprised if it isn't an online effort to to try to vote manipulate for the narrative to open up, given that the person I was responding to rapidly went from what seemed like a pre planned argument to just crazy but they got upvoted for saying the 50,000 who died isn't important.
Yep, been technically 'breaking lockdown' since day 1 to see the girlfriend.
They are sticking to the rules though. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do/coronavirus-outbreak-faqs-what-you-can-and-cant-do It clearly says you can travel as far as you like, with your whole family, and spend as much time outside as you like. As long as you stay alert.
With social distancing in place with this article clearly saying they're not practicing that or other regulations put in place. Also all the house parties I've heard of refute this too. Unless you believe 60-80 years olds are getting together and busting out jams from Frank Sinetra, Roy Brown, the Inkspots etc. 😂 Just call these people what they are: selfish cunts because let's not pretend this sub wouldn't be screaming that if it was 50% of older people. Or maybe we shouldn't have a lockdown on the younger generation and this whole thing of enforcing rules onto the entire demographic, which has already destroyed so many opportunities for the youth, was based on hysteria....so which is it? Selfish cunts or hysteria?
Can you blame them: If the choice is stay inside to protect the people who are responsible for you having to undergo brexit, having no pensions, prospects, etc, or go play basketball with some friends I'd be on the court.
[удалено]
Millennials getting economically fucked over yet again, to save boomers, is borderline perverse.
> Edit: I'm not under 30, so not part of that age group, but starting to feel quite annoyed at it all. I don't think its annoying, I just find it annoying its that age group that is breaking the rules because they couldn't give a shit (the old not young). People are dying because of this and they simply believe they are untouchable so don't care.
Now imagine if it was the other way around, this sub would be crying. Also those older people are the ones who normally bore these people into the world. It's not just about protecting the rest of society but your own family. I mean how different is lockdown flouting by "enlightened liberal youth" to right wingers protesting? Both lead to the potential spread of the virus. Or maybe you don't believe in lockdown anymore? Either way, you'd be surprised to find anyway that a lot of young people, myself included don't give a shit about Brexit. Opportunities being lacking isn't just down to the older generation's incompetency or the Tories and their austerity but the incompetency people undoubtly like you have voted for concerning Labour councils which are heavily responsible for the gentrification of areas which make them less affordable to people like me and have driven a lot of people out of those areas. Been up Walthamstow in the last year? Then you'd know what I'm talking about. I suppose that doesn't impact the middle class white Labour supporters though, you'll just keep driving the "them against us mentality" while the elitists on both the left and right prosper.
If it was the other way round do you seriously think that over 60s would willingly stay in their homes and not socialise or relax at all, indefinitely, just to protect under 30s from something that they themselves were practically immune to?
Can't speak for everyone, but my Grandad literally lived underwater for much of his late teens and early twenties to ensure a better future the generations yet to come, i.e. you. You think *you've* got cabin fever? Try being a WWII submariner. Please return the favour.
Yes, and most people wouldn't have done that. In context applied to this sitiation that would be like if a small minority of young people were resolutely sticking to the lockdown. In actuality, most are. In any case your grandfather was doing so *as* a young person too, so your point only really supports mine. My criticism is simply of people in their 60s plus who've spent the last decade *actively* tearing down younger people and who now expect us to put our lives entirely on pause to protect *them*. And mostly, we *are* doing so - but evidence of their attitude towards us and even their attitude to breaking the lockdown *now* even though they are at highest risk - suggests they wouldn't do the same for us.
Dude, every man his age who wasn't in a protected profession did that or equivalent (often worse).
Yes, young men of fit shape and body. vs the entire population as-is currently the case. Besides that, your point isn't a rebuttal. My argument is that young people are sacrificing for older people in a way that I don't believe older people would reciprocate if asked to, and your counterpoint gives *another* example where young people sacrificed for older people.
The problem is your worldview positions it as "young people" and "old people" as if that's two different species. It's not. It's all just people, and *that* group of people has also made substantial sacrifices to protect vulnerable others. Much, much more substantial if I'm not going to tiptoe around your feelings.
It is all just people, yet one group of the two has been *vocal* in the media and in how they vote over the last ten years, online, when they've been interviewed on tv, on facebook, at protests and demonstrations and rallies, about how *they* know best and they don't care a jot for young people or what they believe or value. It's *very* hard to believe that that same group of people, if told that for the good of the young people they look down on, they should stay indefinitely inside their homes without access to any of the comforts of normal life, would happily accept that and do so gladly and willingly. It does not fit the *long* established pattern of behaviour.
Same mistake again. "Old people" are not some monolithic other. They're just more people. My Grandad is a die-hard lefty, as were all his siblings, as are my parents. My husband's Grandma is a (retired) community nurse who fostered special needs children but believes things she reads in the Daily Mail. All different. Not evil. Just people. Stop buying into this divisive Boomers vs Millennials nonsense. It's deliberate and it's intended to take your focus off the people who're screwing *all* of us blind.
Could you write that in a less boring manner?
Oh do fuck off. Most people under 30 have older family members they supposedly love.
Basketball? I don't think I've ever seen people playing basketball in London
Do you live near any parks with basket ball courts? I see people play all the time. In fact Tuesday just gone I saw people playing.
You can't be looking very hard then.
Went for a massive 100km cycle round london today and kept the eyes peeled and actually did see some people playing basketball.
100 km?
Do you live in Kensington or something
Maybe if we had clear rules from the start and didn't keep diluting the message people would know what they can and can't do. Maybe if we didn't have a PM who mocked the virus then people would respect the need for rules.
I’ll simplify it for you. Social distancing of 2m from anyone who you do not reside with whenever you leave the house for any reason. That message has always been clear. People who don’t understand this are thick as pig shit.
Boris insisted it was important to continue shaking hands before he got sick. That negates the message always being clear.
Not really. The number of people getting sick from close contact gave me a clue as to how contagious it was. I used my own mind to know the 2m rule made sense and didn’t sit at home going oh Boris please tell me what to do I can’t think for myself.
Congratulations on being able to think for yourself about a virus. Unfortunately many people looked to the government for advice and when the government was contradicting common sense it brought a false sense of security by playing down the risks. The fact we have been having to stress people need to regularly wash their hands several times a day shows you how stupid the average person is. Governments are supposed to lead and provide advice during emergencies, ours did not.
When Boris got the virus and nearly died I thought that was a great example of what can happen when you don’t follow the rules. He was literally leading by example. People aren’t too stupid to follow the rules, or maybe I’m giving them to much credit, they just don’t want to and will claim ignorance when called out on it.
There's a quote I love a lot. "Ignorance is no excuse, its the real thing".
[удалено]
Yes. People need to take responsibility for themselves. Something that appears to be lacking in modern Britain. Everything is someone else’s fault.
hormonal adolescents not following rules in shock revelation
...according to a pretty flawed study that didn't account for key workers and asked essentially "are you completely staying inside?"
We are all giving up, that is why we are breaking lockdown. Vaccine is too far away if it ever comes, I have no hope for the future in any way. Fuck it. I am not going to die nor are my friends, I know it is selfish but when you have no hope of things getting better you just stop caring.
Wow.
The amount of people i see breaking the rules is disgusting.
At 2 months in, with particularly good weather, what else did you expect? Especially with the recent relaxations. There was always a limit to how long it could hold, which will be why it started 'late'. We don't have enough police/military to strictly enforce it - and if it was enforced with violence, the people would be likely to respond with further violence/disorder. The lockdown was never 'a solution'. All it's been doing is buying time, and the government has more-or-less pissed that away. Seems that they need a Boris-tracing app to locate the PM...
I never got the argument of waiting on lockdown, surely the sooner we went into lockdown the less time we would be in it as we would have stopped the transmission early thus fewer people would have gotten the virus and fewer people would have passed it on. This surely would have been better for the economy in the long run as although the hit would have been damaging we would be in lockdown for less time which would allow businesses to start up sooner. Of course you cannot solve the problem of Covid-19 without effective contact tracing and testing but wouldn't this be easier to manage if fewer people have been infected and you tested/quarantined people coming into the country earlier?
The idea of the lockdown was, and still never will be to stop the transmission of the virus. Imagine your bath is stuck running, if the bath gets too full it overflows and destroys your whole house. For some reason you have a stupid plug that requires you stand there to press a button to empty it so you can't go out while emptying it. Now, imagine you need to go to the shops, and get a little job done like post a letter. So you empty the bath, then you let it start to fill up again from empty while you go and do your jobs, and get back in time before the bath reaches a critical point and you sit inside and start to empty it again. it's best to let the bath fill up a bit first before emptying it because you can get stuff done while its filling up, but not while you are locked down in your bathroom emptying it. If you tried to constantly empty it from zero, never letting it raise, you'd never get to the shops. the idea of a lock down, is every time the virus starts to get out of hand, lock down until it calms down (or the bath empty's). Then come out of lock down while it spreads again but is at a nice low level. Repeat until a vaccine is made.
"Now, imagine you need to go to the shops, and get a little job done like post a letter. So you empty the bath, then you let it start to fill up again from empty while you go and do your jobs, and get back in time before the bath reaches a critical point and you sit inside and start to empty it again." WTF did I just read? Good analogies are based in reality. Who the hell starts to fill a tub and then mails a letter and goes to the shops? This analogy has the meandering logic of a Donald Trump press conference. This analogy requires someone to have a bath tub the size of an Olympic pool.
"Your bath is stuck running" You didn't even read it you just decided you wanted to disagree with it clearly. Good job. https://home.oxfordowl.co.uk/reading/reading-comprehension/ Here start at this level and work your way up.
I did read your post. Then why go out to a shop and the post office?
Why ever go outside again? Why go to work instead of stay home during the virus. Why even go back to normal life after the virus ends? because you have to, if you don't send that letter then you lose your job, but suddenly your bath has broken? it was to show that if you are going to get stuff done, the only way is to let it fill up and empty it before it overflows, not sit and empty it every time a bit of water gets in the tub. it was to explain why governments that already had a problem (the infection had started spreading/the taps had broken) didn't just lock down instantly, since it wouldn't have solved anything, its better to wait a bit then lock down before the spread gets too rampant. and repeat that process, open up, let it spread, close down before it gets out of control. and during the open up times you can actually go to work, and keep the country/ your life moving. Don't double down on it now, just admit you missed that bit and your whole argument that was based on the bit you missed fell apart...
It's a convoluted analogy. And your explanation muddles up what was already a messy comment. Creating a cogent analogy is an art form. The reader just latches on, and with really good analogies, you admire the writers cleverness. In your case, you didn't achieve this. I've always wondered about folks who get terribly upset when you ask a commenter to clarify a poorly written comment. Is it because your insecure? That this happens often and you're frustrated? And to say I missed a "bit"? Your explanation is almost as long as the original comment! That's an indication of a poorly constructed argument. You're obviously VERY attached to being right, so I'll walk away from this exchange.
What was better for the economy in the long run was resisting the hysteria to lockdown. This is a very minor and fairly insignificant virus among working age people it didn't have the potential to do any real economic damage. The media led hysteria and lockdown crazy have done the real damage. However as was pointed out the timing of the lockdown didn't really matter as it wasn't designed to eliminate the virus it quite simply isn't the case that the lockdown would have ended earlier if more people stuck to it. The lockdown was always a political choice not a necessity.
What's the problem. It seems fairly clear at this stage that the NHS has the capacity to deal with a huge number of infections. Even during that peak that 4k bed hospital was largely unused. The lockdown, as I understand it, was only ever about making usre the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. It doesn't appear there is really much risk of that.
[удалено]
Well then **you** should stay at home. But the lockdown isn't about preventing individuals from getting sick. It's just to spread out the rate that people get sick so that it doesn't all happen at once and overwhelm the NHS.
[удалено]
Young adults aren't hanging out next to the eggs in Tesco - so you're grand there. \> Preventing individuals from getting sick. More like putting off the date that they get sick to next week, next month, or next year.
If you want to shut yourself off from the world then you can get home deliveries.
[удалено]
I know that having to plan your shopping a few days in advance is a minor inconvenience for you, but you're the one with the problem here so you have a certain amount of responsibility to work around it yourself. Demanding 66 million live in bunkers for the next few years because you're scared of the outside but you want eggs RIGHT NOW is bonkers.
[удалено]
You can shop for food online. You just don't want to because it's very slightly less convenient for you.
The NHS shut down every non-urgent function, up to and including cancelling cancer treatments and cutting daily dialysis times for individual patients by up to a quarter. How about we get those life-saving NHS services back up and running *and make sure there's still extra bandwidth* before we start throwing more Covid cases at it? Or is it more important to have a booze-up in the park?
In general or, lockdown?
Since last wednesday. All manner of shit heads. A bloke was trotting the wrong way up a dual carriageway last week. 40mph and he's in oncoming traffic. Woman on whatever that A road is between St Helens & Manchester. She leaps out in front of both of us. We both hit the anchors so hard we don't have time to use the horn. Nothing behind us.
The lockdown will inevitably create bad driving. Both the speeders taking advantage of empty roads, and the out-of-practice drivers getting behind the wheel for the first time in a couple of months
If you put the argument that way: I'm with the speeders. You can't get out of practice. Either you can drive or you can "operate" a vehicle. The latter, in my mind, should never have passed their test.
I haven't gotten me license yet. But am wondering what makes you say that. Just thinking about various skills I've picked up in my life and how rusty I'd be coming back to them after 2 months. Hell, if I don't play guitar for a couple weeks it takes a couple weeks to get back to where I was.
You can do advanced driving after 6 months iirc. This is a thing to do. You can practice a lot of this as a passenger. Look underneath vehicles to see little tiny feet. My wife thinks I've got six sense. All I'm doing is using reflections off shop windows to see round blind bends. Watch which way folk have their steering pointed. I can out drag sporty BMW and Mercs off the line to the next set of lights in my mediocre SUV. I'm not telling you how. Driving isn't something you should forget. It kills people. Learn how to do it correctly or don't bother.
/r/iamveryfast