Over 50’s on lockdown. What next??

Where did you get your test Bibisarah. Not in Italy or in the UK in February

I live in a country where testing was routine from the outset if you attended a health centre and even one of your symptoms could be attributed to Covid.

If they kept over 50s in lockdown then the schools could definitely not open as half the staff would be off.

I know I live in “what if” land saying this - but what if Government ruled everyone could retire with a state pension at 60 years old. Would that

a) give older people a choice not to be working and in daily contact with people if they don’t wish to be (re the Virus)

b) make way for a larger percentage of younger (healthier?) people to have jobs and pay their family bills

c) cost the government less than rolling out a further 4 month furlough payment scheme making up 80% of - in some cases - very high salaries (compared to a state pension).

Just thinking of alternatives to suit the many rather than the few .....

growstuff

Michael Gove's wife, Sarah Vine, claims to have the answer ...

Stupid woman!
I am 65 and still working in a job that I love, I sincerely hope that I can return to this in September.
I also hope that I have a good few years ahead of me yet, of course no-one knows.

Puzzler61

I know I live in “what if” land saying this - but what if Government ruled everyone could retire with a state pension at 60 years old. Would that

a) give older people a choice not to be working and in daily contact with people if they don’t wish to be (re the Virus)

b) make way for a larger percentage of younger (healthier?) people to have jobs and pay their family bills

c) cost the government less than rolling out a further 4 month furlough payment scheme making up 80% of - in some cases - very high salaries (compared to a state pension).

Just thinking of alternatives to suit the many rather than the few .....

I’m 62 and would happily retire if state pension was enough for me to live comfortably.

Puzzler61

I know I live in “what if” land saying this - but what if Government ruled everyone could retire with a state pension at 60 years old. Would that

a) give older people a choice not to be working and in daily contact with people if they don’t wish to be (re the Virus)

b) make way for a larger percentage of younger (healthier?) people to have jobs and pay their family bills

c) cost the government less than rolling out a further 4 month furlough payment scheme making up 80% of - in some cases - very high salaries (compared to a state pension).

Just thinking of alternatives to suit the many rather than the few .....

Chatting to a friend yesterday, she’s 63, and a dispenser at a pharmacy.

She has written to our MP, suggesting that if they paid pensions at this age it would open up the job market for so many young people.

She received a reply, but just a lot of waffle really, no proper acknowledgement of the reasoning behind the letter.

The job prospects of the young are a real concern.

What about all those people who have continued to work past pension age because they can't exist on just the state pension?

I think it is a good idea.

People wouldn't be forced to retire but if they had the choice of retiring with a state pension at eg 63, it would open up the job market for younger people.
There could be a skills shortage, however.

This can’t possibly be true but has wound me up, husband brought it up and I think wishes he hadn’t.

I have because my died young I have kept so fit and active. Low resting heart, low b p, low bmi, and no meds and I am proud of that and it has helped with my depression so much.

I will not be social isolatI got myself. The re bound affect on your body will do so much harm plus on mental health too.

I overtake people on bike twenty thirty years younger and know some older than me who ride cycles a lot too, the knowledge that over fifties have in the work place is so valuable for passing skills on too.

If self employed and over fifty how can you self isolate with no health conditions. You would go bankrupt.

I like lots on here follow all guidelines. The younger people not all I might add there are good and bad I all ages but ally are mixing with no distancing.

Is it not only those with underlying health conditions who may need to shield?

Although over 70s had to be careful to avoid the last peak, they were not told to self isolate at home unless they had a letter advising them they were in certain at risk categories, which were quite specific.

It is only those with underlying conditions who are high risk 50 and over who might be advised to self isolate in the even of the UK “R” increasing substantially.

Best not to worry about something which may or may not happen.

Meanwhile Sweden had virtually no lockdown and apparently just let the virus run its course, presumably alongside protecting the vulnerable.

Interestingly, despite that, it is not high on the list of countries which have fared the worst from the epidemic.

Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there.

The Swedish Government has been criticised for its attitude to deaths in care homes. Over half the deaths recorded as Covid deaths are in care homes.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the general population returns from their rural summer homes.

Calendargirl I don’t remember it being in their manifesto when last voted in, but this government and BJ especially, are experts at WAFFLING.
Waffling and prevaricating ( but thinking about it, it can be said of many politicians. )

Well done to your friend for writing to put her point forward.

Well they might be criticised and of course the care homes deaths is very sad but I bet as a country they won’t be facing the possibility of millions of people unemployed.

Japan is the country that intrigues

No severe lockdown. No closing of borders. Hardly any testing. Large elderly population

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-53188847

As a person over 50 with significant underlying health issues, if I still had a face-to-face job, where social distancing is impossible, I would welcome the protection from compulsory shielding.

I don't understand the mentality of people who would deliberately put their lives at risk when an alternative could be found.

My daughter is an HR Manager in Greater Manchester. Her company hasn't furloughed anybody, but have had people working at home, some doing their normal job with strict precautions and have redeployed those with health risks to safer environments.

The company was planning to put at risk employees back to their original roles, but that's now been put on hold, as a result of the situation in Manchester, about which they were given no notice.

There are less scrupulous companies who would insist that vulnerable people do their normal job, which could put them at risk. If they refuse, they're sacked - and it's already been happening. It's far better that those people have some kind of formal legal protection against unfair dismissal.

growstuff unfortunately there will always be unscrupulous employers, COVID has given them the excuse to cull their workforce.

We have one employee who will only be coming into the office once a month the rest of the time they shall work from home.
I am not going into the office due to asthma but happily meet AC in their or our gardens, having four family members working together (socially distanced and sanitiser/hand washing/extra cleaning) I do worry. All we can do is be as careful as possible.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff unfortunately there will always be unscrupulous employers, COVID has given them the excuse to cull their workforce.

We have one employee who will only be coming into the office once a month the rest of the time they shall work from home.
I am not going into the office due to asthma but happily meet AC in their or our gardens, having four family members working together (socially distanced and sanitiser/hand washing/extra cleaning) I do worry. All we can do is be as careful as possible.

Yes, there will always be unscrupulous employers, which is why it would be a good thing if there were formal recognition that some employees are at higher risk and they are granted legal protection.

If an employer can't provide a safe environment, it can dismiss, but it should pay compensation.

No employee should be put in a situation where the working environment is more unsafe for him/her than it is for other people. Employers have a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments and, if they can't, they must pay compensation.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff unfortunately there will always be unscrupulous employers, COVID has given them the excuse to cull their workforce.

We have one employee who will only be coming into the office once a month the rest of the time they shall work from home.
I am not going into the office due to asthma but happily meet AC in their or our gardens, having four family members working together (socially distanced and sanitiser/hand washing/extra cleaning) I do worry. All we can do is be as careful as possible.

You haven't addressed the issue.

Employers have to be as careful as possible and they mustn't just shrug their shoulders, if they make a mistake.

Some formal declaration on people with health issues would clarify the situation.

Puzzler
Lovely idea RE retiring at 60. But it's never going to happen.
Some years ago a Europe wide study showed that the earlier you retire, the longer you live.

Yes, you are right MerylStreep, sadly.
It is just my Nirvana string of thoughts.

Growstuff sorry what issue have I not addressed?

We have vulnerable employees, we have facilitated them being able to work from home. I forgot to add that one does not now have a customer facing role which was a major part of their job pre Covid due to age and health conditions.

If employees feel that they need extra support they should seek GP confirmation by way of a letter and speak to their line manager, or take it higher if they are not satisfied.

Employers are bound by employment legislation for the safety of their employees.