Am I out of step with other pensioners?

@blossoming ... I totally agree with your point about our children wanting us alive as opposed to having a holiday.

3yrs ago, I had an insurance policy mature and I'd promised my two adult sons a fantastic holiday when it did but 3 months prior to the payout I received a letter from the NHS saying they weren't going to do some surgery that I'd been waiting over 5yrs for, so I asked the boys (I still call them that and they're 31 & 24) whether I could use the money for the surgery instead of the holiday. Yes, it was my money not their's but I said there were 3 of us involved, so the majority vote wins. I was obviously voting for surgery, my elder son voted holiday but younger son said 'have the surgery mum, I'd rather have you here than just the memory of a great holiday'.
My elder son wasn't impressed but reluctantly agreed that if he wanted a holiday he was capable of paying for one himself with the benefit of not having to take me with him.
So I got the surgery. Almost 3yrs on and I feel so much better, my life expectancy has been greatly improved and I'm looking at the possibility of still being around to see my boys become middle-aged.
I know I went off on a tangent from the main point of the thread but I just wanted to give an example of the fact that our lives are valuable to our kids (most of the time anyway).

LovelyLady how fortunate to have children so close to look after you. Would you please spare a though for those who do not have children close enough to be so supportive, or who may not have a family at all.

Also, if you are completely isolating, which you consider a virtue. Have you ever considered those who are putting themselves at risk to enable you to be so carefully. Your family to begin with, the supermarket workers, the delivery drivers and so on.

Fewer of them would be so constantly at risk if you did your own shopping.

We are all helping each other and staying positive till this is over.I think of my sons and family and know what I’m doing and will continue to do will be the right thing to do to come to an end to all of this.

There are no facts that show lockdown of younger people has nothing to do with protecting older people. It is merely opinion. An opinion that many older people simply don’t want to confront. Older and vulnerable people should have locked down to protect themselves whilst younger people and children should have been left to live their lives. We have trashed our economy, and caused untold damage to children and young people by these lockdowns. It is younger people who will lose their jobs when their furlough ends, it is younger people who have had their university courses delivered whilst they are locked in a small room. The statistics clearly and unequivocally show which age groups have suffered/died from Covid. We all know or have heard of the very occasional death of a younger person, but it’s not the norm. And meanwhile many older people still refuse to go out of the house which is their right, but it’s not their right to suggest that younger people and children should have their lives endlessly curtailed to protect them.
I totally supported the initial lockdown and did absolutely everything by the book. It didn’t help me, I got a serious dose of Covid anyway, not through not following rules, but because my elderly mother had a fall and was hospitalised. She came home with Covid. We got it (support bubble) and I was hospitalised for twelve days very ill. Lockdown was useless to me, but was probably helpful to others.
We need to open up now and people who wish to continue to isolate themselves should do so. Others can get back to normal. Young people and children deserve this. Their futures should not be blighted by selfish people.

Absolutely agree, maddyone

I am not refusing to confront your opinion, maddyone. I just don't agree with it.

In fact I think it is illogical to say you are being unselfish by wanting young people to have the protections of furlough and working from home removed so that they can 'get on with their lives', which still means risking catching Covid. As you say, you observed the first lockdown and still caught it - surely you can see that if everyone goes back to working in offices and using public transport the same will apply to other people?

Personally, I think that this is a very uncaring attitude, and hope that my own adult children can continue to work from home for as long as it is unsafe to do otherwise. I have covered my own situation in other posts, and don't feel that I have expected anyone to have their lives blighted 'for me'. I just want them to be protected too.

I can only say that my daughter and son in law are doctors and didn’t have the luxury of working from home. My son in law works part time at the Covid Hub as well as in his GP practice, and he got Covid from there. My daughter got it from him.
One of my sons works from home, the other has to go to work. Neither were furloughed. They continued to work.
We can’t go on with furlough forever, it has already cost so much and younger people are going to have to pay for it. Their future is important, not just our present.
I have observed all the lockdowns. I do all the things I’m asked to do. Not that it made any difference, as you say , I still got Covid. I’m weary of it now. If lockdown was so successful, we wouldn’t have 160,000 plus deaths. Maybe older people and vulnerable people should shield themselves, and let the younger ones get on with their lives.

I will say finally that I was a massive supporter of lockdown at first and felt that we locked down too late initially. But having caught Covid despite doing everything right, I just feel totally sick of it all. I did everything I was told to do and I still caught Covid and I was seriously ill. Lockdown didn’t and doesn’t prevent Covid. Vaccination does though.

I feel like I’m getting nowhere as my points are never addressed, but you have brought up the case of your children, who caught Covid because of working outside the home - isn’t this an argument for those who don’t have to go in to their workplace to continue to work from home? They are still working, and still contributing to the economy. That would protect both them and those, like your own children, who are in public-facing roles.

Older and more vulnerable people are now vaccinated, so if it were a numbers game it would make sense to let them go about their lives and leave the unvaccinated to stay indoors, but they are not doing so.

I do not feel that this is a generational issue. If we go down the road of allowing people different freedoms depending on their age, we are on a very slippery slope.

Doodledog

I feel like I’m getting nowhere as my points are never addressed, but you have brought up the case of your children, who caught Covid because of working outside the home - isn’t this an argument for those who don’t have to go in to their workplace to continue to work from home? They are still working, and still contributing to the economy. That would protect both them and those, like your own children, who are in public-facing roles.

Older and more vulnerable people are now vaccinated, so if it were a numbers game it would make sense to let them go about their lives and leave the unvaccinated to stay indoors, but they are not doing so.

I do not feel that this is a generational issue. If we go down the road of allowing people different freedoms depending on their age, we are on a very slippery slope.

It’s absolutely a generational issue.

We locked down to protect the hospitals and the most vulnerable.

The most vulnerable are given vaccines first.

Perfect.

Now! Those who are vaccinated want to live their lives and travel. All while the younger generations are still stuck home, having been told for a year not to leave home or they will kill grandma. They’ve been learning at home. Home schooling. Shopping for relatives. Working. Parenting. Never getting a break.

Meanwhile grandma is on holiday as she’s vaccinated.

It’s easy to understand the anger younger generations feel.

How dare you call a certain group of people selfish maddyone? How dare you?

*maddyone, go back a page ot two and I quote the facts, with links, that show that we were locked down to protect everyone. not just the elderly. I am not going to repeat them again, just page back.

Time and again flare ups in the disease has been linked to young people or multi-age groups getting together. Few if any flare-ups have been caused by older people partying, and meeting with other older people.

I think your views are ageist. However I do understand that as you have had the disease you may well still be feeling low and depressed. I understand the disease has that effect.

I know no-one who has had the disease, but I am not going to argue from that that the disease does not exist.

My belief is that, we are in this is a society, not as individual age groups, and even though both DH and I and all my immediate family are vaccinated I believe we should all remain locked down until everyone can be given back their freedom.

Summerlove I am losing the will to live on this thread.

If you (and others) persist in seeing all older people as like the ones who reportedly resumed normal life as soon as they were vaccinated, and all younger ones as deprived and struggling - sticking rigidly to lockdown whilst working and parenting you have a very simplistic view.

With the exception of the very old, many older people still work.

Many younger people have no children (or have older ones).

Furlough is paid for out of tax, which many older people still pay, and it is the young who are the main beneficiaries.

Clinically vulnerable people include large groups of the young - the ill, the overweight, people of BAME origin, diabetics, asthmatics etc.

The group who suffered the most deaths is people in care homes, who were not protected at first, and who then were isolated and kept away from their loved ones.

Not all students are old. Admittedly most are in younger age groups, but a significant number of retirees go back into education, or take the chance to study a subject they have become interested in as adults. They pay full fees with no loans for the over60s, and have also lost out.

Nobody is going on holiday - where did you get that idea? When it does become possible to travel, the restrictions will be lifters for all age groups, not just ‘granny’.

It was not ‘selfish’ of anyone to take the vaccination in their turn. Not doing so would have been selfish. In any case, none of us had a choice- it is being done in the order it is for clinical reasons.

The virus kills all ages - the young can be infect the old and vice versa. We all need to be vaccinated against it to be safe, and the vaccination rollout began as soon as there was a safe vaccine. Personally, I would have put key workers ahead of non- workers, (be they retirees, non- working parents or those who can work at home), but I am not an expert. The expert decision was that that it would be more effective to roll it out in the way they have done.

There has never been an ‘unselfish’ slow lane for martyrs, which is just as well, given the number of people with zero knowledge of viruses, epidemiology or demographics who think they know better than the experts and would have ruined the carefully planned priority order.

If we all stay locked down for a bit longer, all look out for one another (regardless of age) and pull together when this is over, we will get through, despite the terrible number of casualties. If we start blaming one another and flinging around accusations of selfishness it will take longer and cause needless resentments.

Doodledog DH has a saying. 'They have made up their mind. Do not confuse them with facts.

My stepdaughters older child tested positive two weeks ago, she is 15, her parents who are both hospital consultants tested negative as did her younger sister, they all had to isolate for a week. We suspect she might have been mixing with her friends while her parents were working and her sister was at school. My point is that the virus doesn't recognize your age, as my stepdaughter has said that she is treating quite a lot if younger people with Covid and some of them are dying.

Doodledog I agree with everything you have said.

DoodledognI also agree with you. Pitting age groups against each other is very dangerous to all of us.

Doodledog

Summerlove I am losing the will to live on this thread.

If you (and others) persist in seeing all older people as like the ones who reportedly resumed normal life as soon as they were vaccinated, and all younger ones as deprived and struggling - sticking rigidly to lockdown whilst working and parenting you have a very simplistic view.

With the exception of the very old, many older people still work.

Many younger people have no children (or have older ones).

Furlough is paid for out of tax, which many older people still pay, and it is the young who are the main beneficiaries.

Clinically vulnerable people include large groups of the young - the ill, the overweight, people of BAME origin, diabetics, asthmatics etc.

The group who suffered the most deaths is people in care homes, who were not protected at first, and who then were isolated and kept away from their loved ones.

Not all students are old. Admittedly most are in younger age groups, but a significant number of retirees go back into education, or take the chance to study a subject they have become interested in as adults. They pay full fees with no loans for the over60s, and have also lost out.

Nobody is going on holiday - where did you get that idea? When it does become possible to travel, the restrictions will be lifters for all age groups, not just ‘granny’.

It was not ‘selfish’ of anyone to take the vaccination in their turn. Not doing so would have been selfish. In any case, none of us had a choice- it is being done in the order it is for clinical reasons.

The virus kills all ages - the young can be infect the old and vice versa. We all need to be vaccinated against it to be safe, and the vaccination rollout began as soon as there was a safe vaccine. Personally, I would have put key workers ahead of non- workers, (be they retirees, non- working parents or those who can work at home), but I am not an expert. The expert decision was that that it would be more effective to roll it out in the way they have done.

There has never been an ‘unselfish’ slow lane for martyrs, which is just as well, given the number of people with zero knowledge of viruses, epidemiology or demographics who think they know better than the experts and would have ruined the carefully planned priority order.

If we all stay locked down for a bit longer, all look out for one another (regardless of age) and pull together when this is over, we will get through, despite the terrible number of casualties. If we start blaming one another and flinging around accusations of selfishness it will take longer and cause needless resentments.

I didn’t say people shouldn’t take the vaccine when offered. I said it was perfect that they did.

The UK isn’t the entire world, and many pensioners in other countries are traveling.

You can keep choosing to believe you’re the only person in the right.

But this is a multi hued discussion.

All I said was I understand why younger people are upset.

Btw, they also pay taxes.

M0nica

LovelyLady how fortunate to have children so close to look after you. Would you please spare a though for those who do not have children close enough to be so supportive, or who may not have a family at all.

Also, if you are completely isolating, which you consider a virtue. Have you ever considered those who are putting themselves at risk to enable you to be so carefully. Your family to begin with, the supermarket workers, the delivery drivers and so on.

Fewer of them would be so constantly at risk if you did your own shopping.

By isolating and ordering shopping on line, we are keeping out of other peoples' way and reducing the risk of covid spreading. surely that's social distancing which we're all meant to do? Furthermore, if we all did our own shopping there would be fewer supermarket workers (wouldn't be needed to collect orders) and fewer delivery drivers (wouldn't be needed to bring the stuff to us). Delivery drivers are on their own in their vans, wear masks and keep their distance so I'm not quite sure why they are being put at risk. If we're not filling the supermarkets, drifting around looking for this and that then the store workers have more space and less contact.

I wonder that no-one seems to have pointed out that there is a big difference between the restrictions we have and having no policy at all to combat the disease.

Staying out of people's way (social distancing), furlough , working from home, even maybe staying at home seem reasonable actions but only in the short term.

We have had these restrictions for a year now and will have had them for 15 months before they are over. This in spite of the fact that the 50% most vulnerable of our population now have some immunity from the vaccine, and a good deal of the younger people have got some immunity from having had the disease. Our initial maxim "save the NHS" is no longer valid as the number in hospital has come right down.

It is the disproportionality that sickens me, and the fact that the goal posts are always moving.

To my mind, if we had to have some restrictions, they should never have gone as far as telling people who they could see in their own homes and telling us we couldn't see our grandchildren or visit dying relatives. Keeping very old people locked up for a year without being able to see relatives is positively cruel.

There was, and is, a middle way. It is those people who have insisted on ever more draconian rules that have made it impossible to find a sensible path out of this mess.

GrannyRose15 The middle way was tried last summer. What happened? People crowded onto beaches and into parks without following social distancing rules and the result was an increase in the number of cases and deaths. If people had followed the guidelines originally, maybe we wouldn't be in such a mess. the govt must share responsibility for the spread of the virus by being undecided and late in deciding what needed to be done.

Dinahmo
It is now known that it is almost, if not completely, impossible to spread/catch the virus outside. So people going on to beaches and into parks did not cause an increase in cases. Your assertion that if people had followed the guidelines originally that maybe we wouldn’t be in such a mess doesn’t hold water because people did follow the guidelines originally. Just judging from what I see around me, and what I hear, people are much more lax in their interpretations of the guidelines now. Plus now we have perfectly legal support bubbles and childcare bubbles which we were not allowed at first. You only need to look at the roads and see how much traffic is out and about compared with the first lockdown to see that people are not observing this lockdown as rigidly.
The difference in numbers in hospital and those suffering Covid is down to one thing. Vaccination! That is what is making the difference and it will continue to make a difference. Thankfully.

The problem with crowds in outdoor places, is that people will often be getting very close to each other in pinch points - going through gates, queuing for ice creams, and, last summer, ending the day with a meal in a restaurant. Ouside and well seperated I am sure the chances of transmission are minmal, but outdoors and separated often leads to many much closer encounters inside and sometimes outside.

One reason for many extra cars, is that many parents are taking children to and from school because they do not want them travelling on school buses or ordinary buses. which is what they used to be and the school run is not so difficult if you are working from home.

... and toilets MOnica.

GrannyRose I agree with much of your post and I do think that not much thought has gone into some of the restrictions.

However, I disagree about private homes. Goodness knows how this could be monitored, but it has been shown by a number of studies that the majority of transmission (after care homes) took place in private homes. So many people thought that just because they knew people or had a so-called good reason to see somebody they would be safe.

In second place was educational settings. It has really made my hair stand on end that so many people have tut-tutted about house parties and raves etc. but are sometimes the same people who want to send children into spaces which score 10/10 for being unsafe.

In second place was educational settings. It has really made my hair stand on end that so many people have tut-tutted about house parties and raves etc. but are sometimes the same people who want to send children into spaces which score 10/10 for being unsafe.

I agree. People also complained bitterly about students not being allowed to pile into lecture rooms. I think it's the same cognitive dissonance that you describe, as though the virus can differentiate between activities that are 'worthy' such as study, and those that are seen as frivolous such as parties.

Summerlove I am not at all choosing to believe that I am the only person in the right. It is clear that others agree with me. I know that the young pay tax - I pointed out that so do many older people simply because of the posts that suggested that the young were paying for their protection. As I said - I think that this affects all of us, not just older generations, and we all need to pull together.

Of course I understand how young people feel. My family has had two babies born during lockdown. Both mums also have a toddler to look after, with no nursery or friends to play with, and for the first there were restrictions on the father visiting the hospital.

My niece runs a small business connected to weddings, which has been badly affected by Covid. My own children (in their 20s) are working from home, cooped up with their partners for over a year - not ideal for young relationships. Both of them have had to postpone their own weddings and put other plans on hold until they see what the employment situation in their sectors is likely to be when this is over. I could go on, but everyone will know young people who have had their lives affected in worse ways than this. How can you think that people don't understand?

At the same time, my mum (87) has been unable to get out and do the things that she has been doing to meet other people since she was widowed, and she is lonely. My sister and I try to keep her spirits up, but we can't visit, as my sister is too far away, and I am shielding.

As I said upthread, I have asthma, as well as another medical issue that remains undiagnosed because of cancelled appointments, so I have been indoors since the start of lockdown 1. I am working part-time, but doing it online is not easy, particularly as I have to time calls to take different time zones into account.

I am also studying for a qualification that I have wanted to do for some time, and paid full fees to do it (no loans for over 60s). Like younger students, I have had classes cancelled, have not met most of my cohort, and only know the staff via zoom.

Again, I could go on, but others have had it worse. My point is not that my family has gone through anything like the suffering of many others, but that the situation has impacted on all of us, from the newest baby to her great granny.