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

John Dunne’s phrase “no man is an island” feels particularly relevant to this discussion. How I behave is not only about me but about those around me, and by minimising the risks of coming into contact with the virus I am not only protecting myself (and DH, for whom I am carer) but my family, friends and neighbours too.

So we take a short walk most days, avoiding other people, and I do a once weekly supermarket shop which is sufficient for the two of us. And we chat to neighbours at an appropriate distance now and again. It isn’t a perfect life but much better than the probable alternative.

The problem is GreenGran78 there has to be rules in place otherwise it would be absolutely messy. Everyone is just looking from a personal view rather than the whole picture. What if the NHS did that? Oh today I'm not going in I'm going to stay in bed I'm exhausted!!

Reading some of these posts it makes me very sad. There are lots of people shielded or in isolation of all different ages. Single parents stuck in with there kids. Domestic abuse has risen quite badly. And after reading a lot of these posts it seems some have the attitude of I'll do what I want. I'm proud my elderly parents 81 and 82 are approaching this in a sensible and safe manner. They get it, although in isolation they know we are all in this together.
Don't take the NHS for granted. Because if you need them you will turn to them in a shot.

I am not defiant, spoiled, selfish or ignorant.
I am 80, educated, sensible, fit and healthy, and on no medication. I have never smoked, or drunk alcohol.

I have taken an outside walk of several miles on most days since the ‘lockdown’, in the countryside adjoining my house. On not one of those walks have I been within several yards of any passer-by, though I have chatted to some of them.

I have driven to the local supermarket once a week. Again I have kept well clear of anyone, sanitising my hands before and afterwards. On arriving home I have followed all the instructions about cleansing.

I don’t feel that I am putting myself, or anyone else at risk by these activities. I observe all the suggestions for keeping myself and others safe, and take great exception to some of the remarks being made by other posters. Some of you remind me of the ‘jobsworths’, who insist on sticking to the rules, regardless of applying a little common-sense.

SueDonim I sincerely hope they don't extend it to those in our 60s. Most of us in our 60s still have to work full time, as our retirement ages have been extended to 66 and above. I am airline cabin crew and if we are "called back in" when things relax I will not be able to join my colleagues. Financially if we are taken "off furlough" I have no idea how that would work.

I saw a video clip of a rather wise guru who suggested that whenever you feel you don't want to live, try closing your mouth and pinching your nose hard. You will soon find out how much your body wants to live!

I would suggest that it would be the same if you had the virus. All very well to waive your right to medical help when you don't need it. Rather different when you are desperately ill.

I am quite intrigued by the idea that the old are being discriminated against. What possible reason would the government, the NHS or anyone else have for such discrimination? What advantage would there be?

I doubt anyone struggling to breathe would be able to refuse help.

It's a basic human instinct.

As a retired nurse, ward sister for many years, I find the attitude, “It is my choice and if I catch anything, I shall not expect NHS care.” very difficult to come to terms with. I know there are living wills but this, to my mind, is a very different matter. If someone is very ill with Covid 19, medical staff would automatically want to help and will do unless specifically requested not to. If that help is refused, it would cause considerable stress to the NHS staff and is not fair to them. I suspect that those who have said they would not accept hospital help might find it a different matter if they found themselves in that position.

There is also the matter of spread. We keep being told that the virus doesn’t move, humans do. While people are making unnecessary trips out and about, more people will die.

No way, AGEISM alive and well, there is no way they would discriminate against other 'at risk' groups. They treat us like complete idiots. If 'they' can provide, pay for, and administer a replacement carer (for the one that is off sick - not of Covid) for an elderly relative then so be it. There must be thousands of people like myself who are looking after somebody else! The ones who come up with the edicts are generally well off and live in the Westminster bubble far far from reality.

My husband and I have both had Covid19. We are mid 70’s. By husband has had a kidney transplant and I am on immunosuppressant drugs. We are lucky - I guess- we have not been tested but 2 of our children are doctors and they know we have had it. The symptoms were unmistakable- I have never had anything like it in my life and it drags on with fatigue and coughing. However given all our problems we survived it - no hospital visits - just 4 weeks feeling pretty rough. I am pretty certain we have some immunity- therefore I do feel a bit safer and do not like the term vulnerable elderly. I shall respect social distancing but have no intention of being incarcerated for months.

I am 72, my husband is 71 and "Extremely Vulnerable" (i.e. been sent the Government letter advising not to go out at all). I think it's fair.
Our nearest family member (my sister) is 19 miles away - most are much more than that and we rarely see any of them. To be honest, our lockdown deprives us only of going to the Supermarket weekly and visiting friends who own a "Teashop" in a nearby Town. We haven't been physically able to go on holiday for years, and can only visit people whose homes are suitable for a disabled person.
We live in a remote village with no shops, pubs, bus service or any other type of amenity. Thankfully, we have been put in touch with a Volunteer who will get our shopping from now on. I had already written to our GP to have medications delivered. We are fortunate in having a garden, to go out in when the weather is suitable - hubby has skin cancer, so we can't exactly sunbathe!
However, I do think we are fortunate in other ways. Unlike those who would normally go to work and can no longer do so - we don't have to worry about paying the Mortgage or any other bills - nor do we need to concern ourselves about whether or not our "jobs" will still be there, when the Lockdown is lifted. Our children are long since grown up and their children mostly so! Apart from our "aches and pains" - I'm Happy!

Masquerader I agree with you 100%. People who have not been out at all I would think are more vulnerable what ever their age. I shop for myself, go for a daily walk. I could catch it while doing these activities .I’m sure my body is much healthier than younger people who abuse their bodies.
I have in place a POA for my health and wear a DNR band so I think I should be allowed out.

l am very happy with the lockdown, l have 2 children working in the hospital, one working in cocvid wards who is getting exhausted and dispirited watching all the deaths from this disease. we must not add to this unnecesarily. We all have internet, television, phones, please be patient , good days will come sooner if we follow the scientists advice

Blaming - what on earth has this to do with anything at all?!

We are not being "blamed for being a burden on the NHS" - we are being advised of the danger to US!

lizzypopbottle OK, then! Let's spend the same amount of money on every citizen in a totally undiscriminatory way! I'm fed up to the back teeth of hearing older people claim they're discriminated against. They're not. They're being protected.

I can promise you if that the NHS spent the same on the average 85 year old as it does on the average 35 year old that life expectancy would go down dramatically and the country would save a fortune in pensions. It would also release billions of pounds in assets, which could be redistributed to younger people.

Shielding is about protecting, not blaming.
O wouldn't blame someone with cancer, so why an older person?

Getting older is not an avoidable condition. Evidence now shows that many avoidable habits or conditions increase an individual's susceptibility to severe Covid symptoms, regardless of age. Blaming older people for being a potential burden on the NHS, simply because they are older is discriminatory. Older people are an easy target yet we contribute in a big way to the retail economy with our disposable income, support the travel industry, and the workforce couldn't function without the largely unpaid childcare provided by grandparents! Government would do well to remember the potential power of the 'grey vote'.

Peardrop that's a novel way to look at the elderly lockdown!

The other obvious reason to suggest that the over seventies come out of lockdown later than the rest is because we can. The vast majority of us have retired and can safely stay at home without any affect on the economy so let's stop whining and be grateful that we will be encouraged to stay safe when our children and grandchildren will be venturing out in to the unknown.

Luckygirl Firstly, commiserations for your loss. It must make everything especially difficult.

Secondly, I agree with you so much. It doesn't help that we don't know exact statistics, but it seems reasonable to assume that, without some form of intervention, the natural transmission rate would be about 2.5 to 3. That means that the whole country would be infected within a few weeks.

Again, lack of testing means we don't know the exact death rate, but it seems to be about 1%. That means that 660,000 would be killed by Covid-19 - somewhat more than the number of people who die every year from all causes.

Most of those extra deaths would be amongst over 70 year olds, especially males, from a BAME background and with underlying health conditions. We don't know the exact risk, but it's somewhere between 10-20% for over 70 year olds, higher for those in additional high risk groups.

There is currently no cure and no vaccine, so the only thing anybody can do is try to ensure you don't catch it. Even if you catch it once and survive, there are suggestions you don't develop immunity, so could catch it again.

We owe it to OURSELVES and those who care about us to protect ourselves. Without isolation and social distancing, there is no doubt that Covid-19 would wipe out a significant percentage of elderly and vulnerable people. Just think how much the Treasury would save in pensions and disability benefits! I think it's highly unfair to claim others are only concerned about themselves. It's not perfect, but those people being shielded are being given some extra support.

Well said Lucky Girl absolutely true! You are a brave lady stoically getting on with life as best you can. Take the greatest care of yourself and my deepest condolences on the death of your OH!

Rosalyn69 - it is not silly at all. Under normal conditions the fire service is not in danger of being overwhelmed. Under pandemic conditions the NHS does face that danger.

Is it so wrong of the Chief Medical Officer and his department to make us all aware who is the most vulnerable in this pandemic? Would they not be slated if they failed to provide this information?

But when they do there are those who decry them as discriminating against over 70s and BAME - both groups at greater risk. Sounds like a determination to take offence where none has been given.

The results of being aware of these greater risk mean that some might have to take more precautions - now, I do not like them any more than anyone else - but I have been provided with the knowledge on which to make a decision. As is entirely right and proper.

Of course there is the additional factor that we might not just put ourselves at risk by ignoring the advice, but others too, especially those who might have to care for us and for those who might catch it from us (even though we might be symptom free).

I do not take lightly the effects of the deprivations that now constitute a major part of our lives: I have a history of depression and have recently lost my OH of 50 years - so it is a huge challenge. But it is one that I have no choice but to face with as good a grace as I can muster.

I do find all this nonsensical talk about being discriminated against slightly irritating. You may not realise how lucky you are!

The funny thing is I don’t know think anyone gives a stuff about our health. It’s all about protecting someone else. We are bring discriminated against.
Next thing I know someone will be telling not to light a fire in case I burn my house down and am a burden to the fire service who at normal times put their lives at risk attending fires and see dreadful things at road accidents.
It’s that silly.

You are NOT being lumped together as a bunch of decrepit, sickly, irresponsible old dodderers!!!!! Read the official government advice!!!

If you are over 70, you have been advised (along with younger people with certain health conditions) that you are at higher risk and should be especially careful about following the advice to socially distance, wash hands, etc.

You are only being advised to "shield" yourself if you have a defined list of serious conditions, which don't depend on age at all.

I totally agree with this. I was 70 last year, but go to the gym five days a week (at least I used to) and still teach in an independent school three days a week (currently from my study). I really resent the 'over 70's' being lumped together as a bunch of decrepit, sickly, irresponsible old dodderers who have to be protected for their own good. I find this stance really patronising. It's presumably due to the fact that no one in the Cabinet is past 55!