Age 68 and I got caught out by daughter shopping

@jane10. I was carrying it in my hand - with my bank cards!!

Your husband is over 70 and is at risk, let your lovely family do your shopping for you and protect your husband.

Why not in your pocket to allow both hands free? Still doesn't add up.

ninathenana Over 70s haven't been banned from shopping, unless they have very serious health issues. They are in "Group B" (not sure if that's the official term), which includes people over 70 and those with chronic conditions such as diabetes. The advice for them is the same as it is for the rest of the population, but to be extra vigilant. It's a bit of a grey area because I would have thought everybody should be extra vigilant anyway. It's almost as though those under 70 and without chronic health conditions are being given permission not to follow guidelines.

I think people are missing the point. Of course the OP is "allowed" to shop. The stepdaughter is trying to be helpful. This is a personal matter.

Thank you growstuff ?

Another OP who asks us what we think , when we tell them they carry on justifying their choices, why bother posting?

growstuff I'm aware of that, that was my point. There is nothing wrong with over 70s shopping.

Aglassofroseplease I'm not sure why you're thanking me. I've just told you what the situation is. If I had somebody who had offered to my shopping for me, I would gratefully accept it.

As it is, you're no more or less likely to pick up an infection from shopping than your stepdaughter. However, your age means that you have a higher risk of being badly affected. You also run the risk of passing it on to your older husband. If that's what you want, so be it.

ninathenana Sorry, I didn't mean to give a lecture but I do think some people are looking at this the wrong way and there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding.

The government hasn't banned people from shopping as some kind of punishment, but their own wellbeing. Age does appear to be a significant factor in how badly people are affected and assistance is being offered to the most vulnerable.

Most people aren't in the "extremely vulnerable" group, so they just need to take the same precautions as everybody else. However, some people should be aware that they are still more likely to be badly affected than others. I'm not over 70, but I do have underlying health conditions and I am happy to accept any help offered. I don't feel deprived because I can't go out; I feel protected.

Oopsadaisy you are wrong there. You obviously haven’t read or understood my comments and seeing as you don’t know me you are making assumptions about me.

You sound like a very sensible and responsible person.... do go out shopping and for exercise once a day if you feel like it (of course making sure you're as safe as possible). Is not good for mental or physical health to be shut indoors all day. No need to mention it to anyone who will not approve... you're doing nothing wrong.

PS Leave the phone at home x

I dont think you should have accepted their help if you werent going to stay in yourself.

It was unreasonable to have them running around for you if you were just going to go out anyway.

You should have declined their help from the start if you didnt intend to have the benefit (and huge privilidge) of being able to stay safe at home.

Its the fact that you have had them drop things off. AND YET you were going to the shops anyway, that was hugely unreasonable

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

I agree with notanan They are taking an extra risk doing your shopping for you and you're giving the message that you don't appreciate that risk or their thoughtful gesture.

Another vote for notanan

Notanan2 read letter again.... did not ACCEPT their help, they INSISTED ie bullied this lady into staying in 24/7 when she clearly does not wish to

Aglassofroseplease, I think your SD is absolutely right! You have no need to go shopping, do you? Therefore, you are taking unnecessary risks. Why?

www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

My Mum insisted ie bullied me into wearing a crash helmet when I rode on the back of a boyfriend's motorbike when I was a teenager.

For goodness sake! What did the stepdaughter do? Remove her car keys? Lock her in the house? No, she was willing to put her own health at increased risk to help out her stepmother. Do people really need laws to tell them what's in their best interest?

Its your choice but the safest thing to do is to stay home.
We are in a similar situation: DH is 75 and is shielded. I am 71, pretty fit and perfectly able but i am shielding with him.
No family near by can help us but a couple of good friends are shopping for us and our LA have offered help if needed.
I have been tempted to just nip out for something but have resisted.
Doing the right thing can be hard.
Take care.

Growstuff I think you will find the law forced you to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike, not your mother. Exactly what right do you any of you think you have bully people into obeying your version of what is correct? No doubt you don't like being bullied into doing things but that's different I expect.

Thank you Gran 52.
Growstuff how nasty your comments are - you sound like a bully

well i wish i had someone like your SD willing and able to fetch shopping for me.
i used to go once a week, BC; now in the AC era i go less often. trying to eat my fridge completely first, and its only small, no freezer; plus sundries, so as to make most use of trip to shop and fill it up. i regard the shopping trip with trepidation.
that's almost alliterative, the trepidation trip.
anyway, it seems to me that you are taking an unnecessary risk. you could till go out, when it's quiet, for exercise, and avoid people.
but shopping is different. it is a targetted activity. numerous people are heading for the same location, and once inside are milling about looking for items, difficult to keep distance.
also what about the risk you may present to others.
for all you know you may already have the virus and be spreading it about by unnecessary trips.
why take a risk when the stakes are so high, in the cost/benefit analysis. it just doesn't add up to me.
ps, whoever mentioned helmets and the law, i can remember the debate when they became mandatory.... just saying. we are not all spring chickens. and the point was clear enough anyway. or is this more about point-scoring rather than an honest exchange of views. seems rather childish.
stay safe. keep away from shops if you can. and people.