no vaccine for under 50s says vaccine head in UK

BUT......it is so much more than 'wearing a mask and staying a safe distance'......That is fine, and I totally agree that is what it should be about.

But, NOT virtually closing down hospitality industry, with its tens of thousands of employees, NOT trying to stop children attending their schools, NOT having a go at Students for acting ...well,, ...like students and young people usually do. NOT preventing people going to funerals or being able to visit each others homes. NOT continuing destroying the whole fabric of the economy resulting in future decades of misery for hundreds of thousands of people, and probably far more deaths than anything this virus in itself could cause. NOT having a Corono Virus Health Service, instead a properly run and funded NHS to treat the very many both serious and less serious illnesses and conditions effecting so many people. And NOT to use fear as the way to control us all.

We could discuss WHO is being the most selfish -You with your desire to bring the whole of society to a standstill due to the fact that you are infirm - or me (at nearly 80 yrs old and, yes, with underlying health conditions), who wants to give total priority to our next generations to have a reasonable life.

That's your choice Franbern. Personally I'm sick to death of people who won't take responsibility and face up to the truth.

As one of the "infirm", I find it extremely selfish that people would wish to lock me up rather than wearing their masks and respecting a safe distance.

BlueBelle

Exactly griwstuff so the elderly infirm or frightened stay at home and the rest get on with keeping the economy going by working, school etc etc What other way is there ?

Exactly BlueBelle that's the only answer ( at the moment).
If anyone under fifty wants to take my place in the queue they are welcome because I won't be taking the vaccine.

With scientists and virologists so divided themselves as to what is the best way of dealing with Corona - seems to leave each person to decide for themselves.

Yes, I do not agree with Herd Immunity (at least not until such time we might get a vaccine), however, neither am I at all willing to sacrifice our younger generations to decades of total austerity and financial insecurity.

So, having to try to make up my own mind - all I can do is to repeat that ALL priorities must be given to keeping our children in school, our young people in their colleges, unis etc. To trying to keep hospitality, film and art industries operating.

I do find the constant doom laden posts from Growstuff - more than slightly over the top. According to them, this particular virus is likely to kill most of us off (patently incorrect), will leave those who manage not to die with life-time health problems (patently untrue), and the only way for us to deal with this is for all of us to lock ourselves away from everything and everybody for a undisclosed period of time.

Sadly, I know Growstuff does not support Trump, but this poster does seem to following his idea that if you repeat total exaggerations and untruths often, and emphatically enough, then they become facts.

varian

It is shameful that the government will not commit to retaining the extra £20 per week in Universal Credit.

It certainly is. It's also shameful that people with savings or with a spouse/partner in employment aren't even eligible to receive it.

I've been wondering what will happen if there really are a million newly unemployed when furlough ends. Many of those people will probably never have claimed benefits before. I've already read about people who have had to claim and have been horrified at how little people receive. I wonder if it will be a wake-up call to the complacent.

It is shameful that the government will not commit to retaining the extra £20 per week in Universal Credit.

This pandemic has shown up some gaping holes in social support.

It is possible to support the unemployed financially. There could be more robust measures to prevent domestic abuse and support those suffering from it. Mental health services have been underfunded for years - better funding could alleviate sever depression and even prevent suicides. All of that just requires a will to do something.

Schools and universities would be able to run planned courses smoothly, if more thought had been put into providing blended courses, rather than pretending there wouldn't be any issues.

Unfortunately, treatments for Covid-19 and "long Covid" are still in their infancy. I can see no justification at all for letting infection run amok amongst the population, even those who are supposed to be low risk.

varian

What do you expect growstuff when 82% of our national newspapers are owned by foreign billionaires and tax exiles with an extreme right wing agenda?

I don't expect any different. That's why I'm keen that people have the opportunity to have a more balanced view.

Another link (doesn't take too long to watch but makes the same points):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lb9cidVAYs&feature=youtu.be

The 82% means 82% of regular readers of our national newspapers. The proprietors and editors of the Express, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Sun have managed to manipulate their readers' views to the extent that they can get away with accusing the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation of being run by "lefties".

It is sad to hear how many decent folk have been brainwashed to the extent that they say "I'm not influenced". Of course they are.

What do you expect growstuff when 82% of our national newspapers are owned by foreign billionaires and tax exiles with an extreme right wing agenda?

For supporters of "herd immunity" and "getting back to normal", the following are worth reading:

www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-barrington-declaration-an-open-letter-arguing-against-lockdown-policies-and-for-focused-protection/

www.independentsage.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/population_immunity_FINALb.pdf

It's a shame the media is only concerned with pushing one argument and not giving a balanced view.

Whereas very glad that insane Trump is not our President, I am not happy with the so ever changing mind one that we have. He built his political career on being a 'populist' and nowhere in his plans was having to cope with this sort of crisis.

So his so often changes are giving the UK just about the worst record in Europe, in terms both of deaths and economy crash. Dealing with either would be difficult - to be worst at both is disastrous.

However, I do think that we have to prioritise our younger generations in dealing with this. They have a hard enough job dealing with the near destruction of the planet, let alone also trying to live with the economic results from these last few months.

No wonder suicide rates are rising daily - debts are mounting, abuse within the home is increasing, job opportunities in many sectors is dwindling so fast.

Yes, I am frightened, terrified.........not about this virus, (this will come and go), but about the future.

If you live in England are over 75 years old and catch Covid 19, the average chance of dying is 11.6%.

This is a significant risk. For men, for those with a number of pre-existing conditions (such as diabetes, heart conditions, OPCD) or for people of BAME ethnicity, the chance of dying is much higher.

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02483-2

Old people dying do not keep children safe in schools, but if schools were closed in order to protect older people, then children’s needs are being ignored in favour of the needs of older people. This cannot be right long term in my opinion. It was right to do it in March, it is not right to do it again now, although some schools will need to close temporarily if there is an outbreak, particularly if this causes there to be insufficient staff for safety. The needs of children cannot be ignored in favour of older people, in my opinion.

The economy has nothing to do with keeping young people or children safe. The economy will be trashed with further close downs, therefore the government need to balance the needs of the economy against the needs of the population, which it is trying to do, under very difficult circumstances. If the economy completely tanks there will be no money to pay for public services, including the fight against Coronavirus. People and businesses need to be paying their taxes so that money is available to the government so that services can be maintained. The hospitality trade has been damaged hugely by Coronavirus. Of course there could be another complete lockdown of the hospitality industry, but who would that help? It would certainly slow the spread of the virus in my opinion, but really citizens, young and old alike, should be able to behave responsibly when using the hospitality sector, by social distancing, hand sanitiser, and waiters/publicans wearing masks and crucially not allowing too many people indoors standing up. If this cannot be done, well who knows, maybe there will be another lockdown of the hospitality sector. The government is trying to balance the needs of children in schools, universities to operate, the hospitality sector to remain solvent, and people to go to work, against the need to keep the population as safe as possible. Therefore the most vulnerable must take steps to protect themselves, and if many of the most vulnerable are older people, then then will need to consider what they can do safely, and judging by Gransnet I think a large majority of older people are doing just that.

I do not believe the government is trying to balance anybody's needs, except its own need for good PR. It's a disgrace.

How do old people dying keep children and young people safe in schools and universities?

Keeping the economy going won't keep young people safe either. I really am struggling to understand the logic of your argument.

Incidentally I realise that what I’ve just said is controversial but so be it. Society cannot stop for the old, the economy ruined for the old, and children’s life chances be ruined for the old. The government is trying, with difficulty, to balance the needs of everyone. Let’s let them get on with it, and be thankful Trump isn’t our PM.

Research is on going as we speak. There is a great deal to be found out about this virus yet. No one can claim to know that there will/won’t be a vaccine any time soon or in the long term future.
Yes, children do have to go to school. The needs of old people cannot Trump the needs of children. I have a 92 year old mother, and two 93 year old parents in law. Should our grandchildren suffer from a lack of education and in particular should their social and emotional needs be ignored so my very elderly relatives can keep living? No! I will naturally be terribly upset if my mother dies, and my husband (who is far more pragmatic than I am) will doubtless miss his parents, but as he says ‘they’ve had their lives, seen their grandchildren grow up and get married, and seen their great grandchildren born. But die they will, from something, and probably quite soon. And so people must make their own decisions, stay safe by shielding, or by being sensible and obeying the rules, but to claim there will not be a vaccine for a very long time, sorry no one knows, and no one in the older generation should expect schools to close so very old people don’t get infected. It’s selfish.

Yes, there is ongoing research. As yet, there are no conclusions. However, an increasing number of people have been infected twice. It's too early to know how long immunity lasts in the population, but lifelong immunity is certainly not a guarantee.

(I have that from the horse's mouth.)

1. Herd immunity not possible because immunity too short.

Has there been a study to find out if immunity lasts longer in some individuals and why?
Perhaps it's far too soon for meaningful research.

The infection and death rate in Germany is considerably lower than in the UK and the country’s economy hasn’t been so badly infected. This is a summary of what the respected Max Planck Institute says:

www.mpg.de/14773749/covid19-statement

1. Herd immunity not possible because immunity too short.
2. Not feasible to 'shield vulnerable' approach because impossible to fully identify & isolate them.
3. Potential serious, long-term damage to young/healthy also from this virus.

They suggest that what works is:
1. Test/trace/isolate
2. Mask-wearing
3. Distancing
4. Travel restrictions
5. Identifying & stopping super-spreading events.
6. Good guidance to public on what is risky & not.
7 Have a decent national leader.

(OK! I made the last one up. )

No, they shouldn't need to die for the greater economic good, especially when they don't get an equal share of the economic good in the first place.

I agree Illte. Inevitably, some older people and those with medical conditions would be infected and die.

Even amongst the younger, working population a disproportionate number of ethnic minority people and those on low incomes have died.

Letting the virus loose amongst the population by "getting back to normal" would kill people - more from ethnic minority and poor backgrounds, which I find immoral.

It wouldn't be just a few oldies though would it? The death rate for them is much higher 1 in 4, I believe.

And then the other groups vulnerable to Covid. Younger but with medical conditions. Ethnic minorities.

Do they due for the greater economic good?

Its a viewpoint.