Should lockdown for the over 70s be extended when it’s relaxed for everyone else?

If we are told to stay in then we will, if we are allowed to go out, we will be very careful where we go and what precautions we take, sadly I think it will be a while before we travel 250 miles each way to see the ACs and GCs.
We have had to postpone 3 trips this year and we definitely won’t be rushing to get away any time soon.

PS all of my family live hundreds of miles away- so even when lock down is lifted I expect there will be conditions on travel. i except that but I will be reliving some of my life again after the weeks that we have understandably been tied

dontmindstayingathome
Like you my elderly mother, aged 92, lives in a sheltered apartment alone. She has not gone out of the apartment except to the laundry, only one resident allowed in at a time, or to take her rubbish down to the refuse collection room. She wears disposable gloves and washes her hands when she returns. We take her shopping to her and FaceTime her each day. Not so the other residents. One day last week I incorporated a visit to her flats in my daily walk. I stood outside and phoned her and she came to the window and we chatted but could see each other. Whilst I was there a couple emerged from the flats, not residents, and they had obviously been there visiting someone. Then three of the residents came around the corner, together, no social distancing, chatting away, very happy. Another lady, well past seventy, arrived from the shops pulling her shopping trolley.
What don’t they understand about social distancing?

I'm 61, so it wouldn't affect me, but the residents where I work (sheltered housing scheme) would be incensed. They are all moaning every day as it is

I'm a fit and healthy nearly 73 yr old and like Janet Street Porter I'm more than capable of making my own decisions and if it were just down to me I like to think I'd handle easing my own lockdown in a responsible way.

It's not about me though. DH is shielded so I would never do anything that would put him at risk no matter how long we have to stay isolated.

There are some over seventies though have a 'head in the sand' mentality. They are itching to get out and about even though they could add to the NHS's burden and infect others.

We've come too far to risk going back to square one so I would accept an extended lockdown if it comes to it.

I think people will probably need to make their own decisions as to how much they need to isolate themselves.

It never does to be too complacent but I do believe that if people are reasonably fit, have not been prescribed medication for a chronic condition and are not feeling unwell in any way then there is no reason to completely isolate themselves within their homes.

I actually think it is beneficial to get out in the fresh air and take a brisk walk. There is no need to get near other people. It is quite easy to cross the road or take other avoiding action if you see someone coming towards you. If it is supposed to be relatively safe to stand in a line for what might be a considerable time outside a shop, provided you allow 2 metres between each person, then why is it a problem to take a walk where it is much easier to maintain a greater distance?

As to visiting shops and using public transport, personally speaking, I would avoid both as much as is practical.

I would be happy to meet up with my immediate family and socially distance others..there is a risk but hell, I could die of a heart attack and never see them again - there is always risk in living.

Elothan oh yes we've been having daily walks in the fresh air all the time., and chatting to any neighbours we come across (from a safe distance. ) what i will not be doing is going to shops, going on buses, out to restaurants or cafes or pubs etc.

It doesn’t seem to matter how often people are told that at 70 their immune system is far less able to cope with the virus, they still insist that they are somehow different.

Presumably if they do succumb they will lock themselves in their home and throw away the key. Only fair if you are foolish enough to put yourself and so many others in danger.

Someone mentioned in a previous thread that about seven services that would be involved if emergency hospital admission becomes inevitable.

Obviously some posters don’t care about them or that they would leave their families with years of angst and regret because they somehow feel they are “special”.

How much less likely to need a hospital admission is a 69 year old than a 70 year old? Or indeed a 65 year old? Boris is nowhere near either age but needed intensive care. I suppose he should have refused all treatment since he didn't observe strict social distancing rules. In fact 54% of critical hospital admissions for Covid19 are for people aged 50-69 . A Warwick University study says that the extended lockdown should apply to over 50s. Well that's an awful lot of MPs including our PM will be home alone too. I wonder how loudly the over 50s will scream that they're "special" And for the record I'm over 50 but younger than 70.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/29/over-50s-should-kept-coronavirus-lockdown-measures-longer-say/

I think whatever offers the most protection to everyone is what should be implemented.

I am in the shielding group and have stayed home for six weeks. Except, I go out for a walk every day. I keep the distance if I come across other people. I've found everyone wants to maintain the distance whilst being friendly and chatty.
I'm lucky to have close relationships with my children, grandchildren, family and friends. I miss them so much but technology helps. Currently Im accepting its going to be a good while before I hug them. A long time before we can resume caring for our grandchildren, having them to sleep over. I know my age and the meds I take that lower my immune system mean I'm likely to be very sick if I catch the virus. I hope to avoid it and enjoy life to the full again - some time.

If there’s another spike, it’s quite possible that over 70s won’t be eligible for intensive care because some unthinkable choices will have to be made. I work in the NHS, and I know that the disease is random, none of us are protected, and the older you are, without splitting hairs between age 69 and 70 for example, the more at risk. ICU beds are filled with (mainly men) in their 30s to 50s, not primarily older people. Some people are selfish, and think of what they are missing out on by self isolating, but it’s not only for your good, it’s to save those younger people as well. Be responsible people.

Totally agree with the original post
Sussex if that was always the case no old people would recover and there are many in their 80s 90 s do recover we recently had a 93 yr old go home from hospital in our area There can be young people a lot less fit
It should be down to the individual I would never take stupid chances but I don’t want to be holed up for years if at all possible
So within reason yes we should be treated the same as other age groups if we have to wear masks I will I won’t expect restaurants and cinemas to embrace us this year but we should be able to meet up with a distance between us surely and those who want to carry on staying in can do so

This is a chart from Hetty’s link, giving the death rates for various ages.

COVID-19 Fatality Rate by AGE:
DEATH RATE

80+ years old - 14.8%
70-79 years old - 8.0%
60-69 years old - 3.6%
50-59 years old - 1.3%
40-49 years old - 0.4%
30-39 years old - 0.2%
20-29 years old - 0.2%
10-19 years old - 0.2%
0-9 years old -fatalities

Why would you inflict such misery on your family?

What real chance do we have of avoiding a second wave, a second lockdown in the autumn? With so many defiant, spoilt, selfish and ignorant folk about, very little!

Agree Hetty.

People are now expected to work, often full-time, until they can get a pension at 67. What is supposed to happen in three years to make them decline so much that they should be expected to stay indoors?

The current lockdown is supposed to 'flatten the curve' so that the NHS doesn't get overwhelmed by vast numbers of patients needing ventilators. If the situation is now being handled properly, and the curve is flattened, a second wave should be manageable - that was the point of the lockdown. Wasn't there talk of turning taps on and off, or a similar metaphor?

Are the above figures the percentages of people in the various age groups who are expected to die, or who are expected to die if they contract the virus, or who are expected to die if they are ill enough to need intensive care? Or a ventilator?

Without that being clear (and we currently have no idea how many people of any age have contracted the virus, as there are no antibody tests) they are pretty meaningless, other than to show, unsurprisingly, that morbidity increases with age.

Do the figures take into account underlying conditions? If not, then again they are meaningless. A fit, healthy 70 year old with no relevant underlying conditions may very well have a better expectancy than a sick, unfit 35 year old with a lung condition. It's probably the case that more older people have underlying conditions than younger ones, so the variables need to be taken into account, not just the bald figures.

Compelling people of any age to stay indoors indefinitely is a massive step, on a number of levels, and could be the thin end of a number of very worrying wedges.

Doodledog, the age 70 has been chosen (here in the UK) simply because many folk are still working in their 60s. From a purely medical point of view, it really should be 60!

The facts:

'We know that over 95% of these deaths occurred in those older than 60 years. More than 50% of all deaths were people aged 80 years or older. We also know from reports that 8 out of 10 deaths are occurring in individuals with at least one underlying co-morbidity, in particular those with cardiovascular diseases/hypertension and diabetes, but also with a range of other chronic underlying conditions.'

www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/statements/statement-older-people-are-at-highest-risk-from-covid-19,-but-all-must-act-to-prevent-community-spread

It's all very well saying you can take responsibility for yourself but if you are unfortunate enough to catch it then it involves health professionals, your family, people you might have passed it on to and could involve hospital treatment, CPAP and ventilator for you and them so you might feel it is your responsibility but if you pick it up from a shop, grandchild, bus journey without realising then all these other things could be caused by you thinking you are behaving responsibly but actually if you had stayed at home none of it might have happened.

Doodledog if you click on Hetty’s link further back, you’ll find answers to questions such as you ask.

The Warwick University study makes a compelling case for over 50s to be confined to home in a lockdown, yet nobody so far has made comment.
Let's just concentrate on incarcerating the over 70s, after all nobody under that age catches the virus or indeed, passes it on. This is far, far too simplistic!! ElaineI you do know that most over 70s will never make it to a ventilator don't you. I have just been consoling my midwife niece, with a friend, a 40 year old, who has just died from covid19, and whose 43 year old sister is in ITU with the virus. All three are midwives so the majority of their contacts are certainly not 70 years plus. I think that family are truly devastated. This virus attacks all, it doesn't discriminate on age grounds.

According to what I've read, we should also be asking all overweight men to shield but encourage smokers (although the evidence that any protection provided by nicotine, is outweighed by weakened lungs if covid does get in).

It seems covid can trigger an extreme immune reaction so perhaps those with weak immune systems are safer.

Those who have had BCG vaccination are pretty safe too. And, of course, anyone who lives to tell the tale after trying an injection of bleach will definitely be OK, although one would question their mental state.

Trying to prove your point about mortality rates by using a set of statistics when scientists still don't understand the disease is a bit like taking the rules of cricket and applying them to rugby.

Yes, it makes sense to protect the most frail in our society but we don't really know who they are as far as Covid19 is concerned. I'm willing to wait my 12 weeks out (to flatten that sombrero!). But no, I want better reasons than anyone has provided so far to stay locked up just because I was born before 1955.

I'm hoping good science will get us all out of this mess.
Defiant, spoilt, selfish and ignorant I may be, but I'm not the only one questioning arbitrary decisions based on date of birth.

No, it doesn't discriminate on age grounds. Anybody can catch it, but the effect discriminate on age and underlying health conditions.

Not everybody over 70 is "shielded" anyway - only those with specific conditions which make them particularly vulnerable.

Has anybody been prosecuted on age grounds for going out?

Given the statistics, it sounds like very sound advice to stay at home, whatever the "rules" state. I'm not over 70, but I am resigned to staying at home and not having personal contact until a vaccine is found, which will almost certainly be over a year.

I don't think saying "it's age discrimination" will somehow make much difference if I'm infected and badly affected.