Am I out of step with other pensioners?

Most of GNers are of retirement age, or at least over 60 I expect. Most of us have worked since leaving school or uni up until we retire(d). Most of us have brought up children, possibly grandchildren and/or cared for aging relatives or spouses. Some of us will have lost a partner, through death or divorce and are now on their own.

The one thing that unites us, I think, is the hope that we get to have some pleasurable me or we time at the end of our working lives. If this pandemic had happened 30 or 40 years ago, when we were in our prime, would we have felt the same as Bbbface? I hope not.

Each generation has done and will in future make sacrifices of one sort or another. Our parents doubtless made sacrifices so that some of us could go to uni (not that many in the 60s) or get an apprenticeship or training contract. Or paid for a wedding, or saved up to buy Christmas presents.

I'm not saying that our working lives weren't good or bad, some or all of the time. I'm still working and enjoying it. I work from home and can chose when I want to work and still enjoy the contact with other people. But I still have things that I want to do and see and, quite frankly, I don't see why I should give up on those wishes just yet.

I agree that young people are having a hard time just now but there have been other times since I was born and we coped.

There's lots of ands and ors in this but I'm trying to encompass as many people as possible.

we would be mortified if we were thirty years older and understood what children were missing out on in order to protect us

Well - that is a strange thing to say!

Why should I be mortified that we are all pulling together to keep the NHS going? Why do you assume that those of us who have reached pension age are asking children to "miss out" to protect us? We are all doing it to protect each other.

And - ask yourself this - are children really missing out that badly? You and your friends are of a generation that has become used to having control over your lives and having freedom - many of us here are post-war babies - we know what our parents went through, so this blip in the smooth running of our lives does not seem such a big deal. We are happy to do what we can to help others and prevent more deaths and illness.

Children have missed out on school for a bit - but they are all in the same boat, so they will not be disadvantaged. And maybe school at home (with all the challenges that brings) is not such a bad thing for a while. My DGC have learned all sort of things whilst at home - and learned in ways that have demanded that they think in new ways. They have learned a valuable lesson - that life sometimes throws you a curve ball and you pick yourself up, face it head on and adapt.

There will be children from disadvantaged backgrounds who will have missed out, but I (as a school governor) know how hard school staff have worked (and are working) to plug that gap.

I have worked very hard all my life in a demanding caring profession, have brought up 3 children, have cared for my GC regularly, have nursed and fought for my OH who became ill in his 50s and died last February. Is it not reasonable that, after giving so much, I should have a bit of time to just enjoy life for a while? I am happy to take all the necessary precautions to help everyone around me to stay safe and well.

My GC have learned good things about how we should share our good fortune, and do what we can to empathise with and take care of all those around us - they have grown and matured and developed in so many ways during this lockdown. I am thankful that my DDs have taught them this by example and am proud of them.

What are your children learning from your attitude Bbbface? Are they learning to be decent caring people? Are they learning how to face up to life's challenges with good humour and strength of character?

Many more people not NHS staff. Sorry for not being clear.

If we decided to forgo protection for the vulnerable we would have to accept that hospital treatment would not be possible for everyone and that most people who became ill would have to have home nursing without specialist equipment and expertise. The NHS could not have admitted and treated everyone. As it is, even with lockdown measures, medical staff are exhausted, nearly 1000 caught Covid and died, 56,000 have been affected long term.

Many more would have died. Probably many more than a million with specialist treatment unavailable.The disease would have been unchecked and it would not have been possible for the majority to avoid infection. Preventative measures, like masks, only reduce the chances of infection not prevent.

Because we lockeddown and prevented rampant infection we may have lost sight of what it would have been like with no lockdown. Especially if you live in an area that has had low infection rates. A sort of ‘It hasn’t been so bad. We needn’t have shut the schools, shops, whatever’. And not realising it hasn’t been so bad for you because of the lockdown measures.

I appreciate Repat's concern but I think she has got completely the wrong end of the stick.

Younger people are not being locked down to protect us, they, like everyone else, are being locked up to protect everyone else, regardless, of age, gender, ethnic origin, COVID is not age selective.

Where the problem lies with COVID is that the oldest in Society are most likely to have the disease severely and to die from it, so we are having to conform to much more stringent conditions than the rest of society to try to protect the hospitals and all that work in them from being overwhelmed with seriously ill older people.

Repat's belief that her children and grandchildren are being locked up to protect her is quite simply wrong. she is not out of step with her generation, there is nothing to be out of step with.

Everyone in the world is under threat from this disease and I am prepared to stay locked up as long as is necessary to protect my children and grandchildren.

Bbbface

I’m a parent of two young school aged children

My friends and I (all in late thirties and early forties) have all agreed that we would be mortified if we were thirty years older and understood what children were missing out on in order to protect us

I understand that children have missed a lot over the last year.

Those children may not want to lose much loved grandparents and many parents rely on their parents for childcare.

Bbbface

I’m a parent of two young school aged children

My friends and I (all in late thirties and early forties) have all agreed that we would be mortified if we were thirty years older and understood what children were missing out on in order to protect us

Is that really what you think? My view is that we are all in this together and I don’t want to see any more children losing a parent to COVID or to long COVID. I am protecting you as well as myself.

Doodledog

What would those advocating older people not being protected suggest as an alternative, or is this a generalised non-specific call to martyrdom?

How would it work, if not? Euthanasia? Instead of vaccine hubs, have centres where on your Xth birthday you go to die? Which birthday would people like to see instead of the X? Or if not direct euthanasia, are you advocating an indirect version, where people are not treated for Covid, or Covid-related conditions? Aside from the fact that this would just spread infection, what about the fact that it is older people who have paid to fund the NHS all their lives, which by definition have been longer than the lives of younger ones? Is there a moral case for saying that their contributions are disregarded now that they are more likely to need care?

Do you think that older people should be kept under house arrest, whilst younger ones go about their business? If so, what about people who still work, volunteer or help with childcare? Should they be exempt from being grounded, or be forced to give up their way of life?

In a similar vein, what about the fact that many younger people are saving, and in other ways working towards the time in their lives when they can enjoy the 'fruits of their labours'? Remove that incentive by suggesting that older people's lives (or lifestyles) matter less, and you would also disrupt the lives and mental health of young people. It is important for many people that they have something to look forward to, or to work towards.

With reference to the OP - in this rather strange pact with the government, are you suggesting that the deal also be offered to those with no grandchildren, with the expectation that they would sacrifice their lives to allow yours to have a more 'normal' life for a couple of years? I can't say that I would be happy with that - the sacrifices I would make for my own loved ones are one thing, but I wouldn't expect others to do the same (for mine) any more than I would do it for theirs - particularly when they are total strangers. I also think that had I been offered this deal when I was young, I would have hated to vote for my grandparents to be sacrificed to protect my way of life and future financial wellbeing.

I suppose I don't see any of this in terms of one 'group' sacrificing more in order that others are protected. Societies are interdependent, and there are very many 'useful' members who are in later life, just as there are younger ones who make no obvious contribution, as well as those who are a negative force.

So far none of my children have suggested that we, or their in laws, are expendable.

I agree with Doodledog 100% and fortunately my children are intelligent and caring enough to make sacrifices to keep as many people safe as possible.

I agree about the vaccination priority. Supermarket workers in particular have worked throughout , often with very little protection.

I'm not sure that I would necessarily put older people at the back of the queue though - the retired may not have to go out to work, but nor do the furloughed or those working from home. I know it would be complicated, but if it could be done it would be better to it in order of risk, based on how much people have no choice but to mix with the general public.

It’s quite simply about protecting the NHS. Older people are more likely to become seriously ill with Covid-19 and need hospital treatment. If they are protected and vaccinated first there’s more capacity to treat others.
On a more personal note my younger family members have been willing to do anything to protect the older generation.

Everybody is making concessions for everybody else. Younger working adults are risking their lives to help protect us all on a daily basis, before and during Covid - prison officers being one regularly forgotten group. Police, Covid Care nurses, Care Home Staff, Social Workers etc - another group, less forgotten.
Teachers in schools risking their safety to educate young people.

I must admit I for one would have preferred to see these key workers vaccinated before older people living in their own homes as the older retired generation don't need to go out to work, while the key workers do.

What would those advocating older people not being protected suggest as an alternative, or is this a generalised non-specific call to martyrdom?

How would it work, if not? Euthanasia? Instead of vaccine hubs, have centres where on your Xth birthday you go to die? Which birthday would people like to see instead of the X? Or if not direct euthanasia, are you advocating an indirect version, where people are not treated for Covid, or Covid-related conditions? Aside from the fact that this would just spread infection, what about the fact that it is older people who have paid to fund the NHS all their lives, which by definition have been longer than the lives of younger ones? Is there a moral case for saying that their contributions are disregarded now that they are more likely to need care?

Do you think that older people should be kept under house arrest, whilst younger ones go about their business? If so, what about people who still work, volunteer or help with childcare? Should they be exempt from being grounded, or be forced to give up their way of life?

In a similar vein, what about the fact that many younger people are saving, and in other ways working towards the time in their lives when they can enjoy the 'fruits of their labours'? Remove that incentive by suggesting that older people's lives (or lifestyles) matter less, and you would also disrupt the lives and mental health of young people. It is important for many people that they have something to look forward to, or to work towards.

With reference to the OP - in this rather strange pact with the government, are you suggesting that the deal also be offered to those with no grandchildren, with the expectation that they would sacrifice their lives to allow yours to have a more 'normal' life for a couple of years? I can't say that I would be happy with that - the sacrifices I would make for my own loved ones are one thing, but I wouldn't expect others to do the same (for mine) any more than I would do it for theirs - particularly when they are total strangers. I also think that had I been offered this deal when I was young, I would have hated to vote for my grandparents to be sacrificed to protect my way of life and future financial wellbeing.

I suppose I don't see any of this in terms of one 'group' sacrificing more in order that others are protected. Societies are interdependent, and there are very many 'useful' members who are in later life, just as there are younger ones who make no obvious contribution, as well as those who are a negative force.

Would you though Bbbface?

I do not see the situation quite as you do.

To me the various lockdowns and other restrictions are not a matter of protecting the older generation from the younger, but an attempt to avoid the horrendous mortality rates we saw in Italy and Spain last year at this time.

They are also an attempt to ensure that the hospitals are still able to provide care both for Covid19 sufferers and for patients with all the diseases and conditions they normally treat.

I don't feel that my age-group is being protected at the expense of my son's. We are all in the same boat,surely, attempting to minimize the number of cases and fatalities due to Covid19.

Unfortunately, there will be economic effects making themselves felt for a long time, and children whose schooling has been affected, but these things are necessary evils in this situation and preferable to a vastly increased death-rate due to Covid19.

I agree. In the beginning we did not understand this virus, and it was acceptable to lock everything down. However, once we got the hospital treatments. under control and insisted on mask wearing, the protocols should have been eased. It is sad that we have put the economy (future of our children/grandchildren) at risk for many years to come, many have missed the touch of family and friends (many died alone) and now babies only see people with masks.

The NHS has been chronically underfunded for decades, and is at crisis point almost every winter. No wonder we need to 'protect the NHS', we can't risk the health system collapsing. There was a report on the readiness of the NHS for a pandemic (the findings suggested it was not), with recommendations for action, some three or four years ago, which dissappeared into a drawer and was not acted on (partly because the government obsessed about Brexit all these years?)

For months now I have been more worried about the long term effects of the lockdown in terms of people's mental health, and in terms of health issues other than covid not being dealt with in the time and manner they should, rather than the worry of catching Covid.
And that's quite apart from serious concerns about the economy, and what kind of a world our children and grandchildren will inherit.
I think we are protecting one part of the population by harming another.
It does not seem right or fair to me, but I don't know what the solution is.

I agree entirely I am so sad how much my precious grandson is missing, I feel very angry a lot of the time. I do not enjoy staying in or missing my family. We are not even given a choice, I know loads of people disagree with me but still it is my opinion

I do worry about the future of my children and especially grandchildren but like others I believe we’re all in this to protect each other in the widest sense, not only family and friends. I also think about how any of us would feel if unknowingly - perhaps with the asymptomatic virus - we infected someone who then died. I think they’ve done the right thing - those of us who have stuck to the rules - and I applaud them.

I’m a parent of two young school aged children

My friends and I (all in late thirties and early forties) have all agreed that we would be mortified if we were thirty years older and understood what children were missing out on in order to protect us

At 69 I have been fit and healthy - lots of am dram playing women years younger than myself. I took all precautions and still picked up Covid. Now I've been told it's Long Covid. It's pretty horrible. If you had hidden yourself away so your children and grandchildren would be safe, there would still have been no guarantees. And younger adults and children can have mild coronovirus and it become Long Covid. Even if all old people had been locked away to give younger people freedom, there would have been no guarantees they would have escaped this virus.

I thought we were protecting the NHS.
I think young people and children have suffered terribly because of lockdown. The lives of older people have been valued more highly than the those of younger people. It may be unpalatable to many, but it’s true.

your choices don't just involve you and your children so your premise is unrealistic.

It is not just about old people. My daughter who has a learning disability is in her 20s but 30 times more likely to die from covid than people her own age without a learning disability. Plus unfortunately lots of young people can be ill with various things that make them susceptible to covid and complications from it. I suppose I am saying, don't feel guilty!

We're all protecting each other..
Young, old, frail or vigorous; exactly how it should be.