Brace yourselves: Bobby Ball gone.

[Burney]

Meh. I smell fudge.

Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

[WES]

Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

In which case they are free to take the decision to self-isolate.

Or to decide for themselves which risks they are willing to take and to act accordingly.

Asking the rest of us to put our lives on hold, load our children down with debt and wreck the economy in order to minimise risk that they are fully capable of controlling strikes me as really, really stupid.

[Burney]

In which case they are free to take the decision to self-isolate.

Or to decide for themselves which risks they are willing to take and to act accordingly.

Asking the rest of us to put our lives on hold, load our children down with debt and wreck the economy in order to minimise risk that they are fully capable of controlling strikes me as really, really stupid.

They are and they have - because they are fortunate enough to have the support network, technological skills and- let's face it - money to do so comfortably. Not everyone has. Equally, they are a couple and so issues of isolation and loneliness are less pressing to them than they are to single vulnerable people.
This 'oh, they should just lock themselves away so the rest of us can get on with it' attitude is profoundly callous, heartless and unthinking. These are actual people you're talking about here, not mere inconveniences.
I also worry about the factors you mention, but I think there's something deeply wrong with thinking the way you do about people.

[WES]

They are and they have - because they are fortunate enough to have the support network, technological skills and- let's face it - money to do so comfortably. Not everyone has. Equally, they are a couple and so issues of isolation and loneliness are less pressing to them than they are to single vulnerable people.
This 'oh, they should just lock themselves away so the rest of us can get on with it' attitude is profoundly callous, heartless and unthinking. These are actual people you're talking about here, not mere inconveniences.
I also worry about the factors you mention, but I think there's something deeply wrong with thinking the way you do about people.

But I'm not suggesting we lock them or anyone else away, I'm suggesting we allow them to decide the risk they are prepared to take.

And your moral perspective excludes the issues faced by people in the non-vulnerable category. Why is it bad to think about people in the way you describe but it's ok to ignore the impact of lockdown on mental health, domestic abuse, cancer patients etc etc ?

My main issue with our approach to Covid is that we don't look at it holistically, we seem to care only about Covid statistics rather than the impact of lockdown generally.

[Burney]

But I'm not suggesting we lock them or anyone else away, I'm suggesting we allow them to decide the risk they are prepared to take.

And your moral perspective excludes the issues faced by people in the non-vulnerable category. Why is it bad to think about people in the way you describe but it's ok to ignore the impact of lockdown on mental health, domestic abuse, cancer patients etc etc ?

My main issue with our approach to Covid is that we don't look at it holistically, we seem to care only about Covid statistics rather than the impact of lockdown generally.

It doesn't exclude people in the non-vulnerable category at all, it simply takes the view that to present vulnerable people with the stark choice between significant risk of death from this virus or self-imposed isolation is pretty inhumane when it is within the power of the rest of us to do things to help mitigate that risk.
I'm not a lockdown fanatic, but neither am I of the opinion that it is feasible or reasonable simply to return to the status quo ante and let the more vulnerable members of our society face that choice. If you're talking about a holistic approach, you can't have one without a rather more sophisticated approach to the most vulnerable than you have outlined.

[Sir C]

It doesn't exclude people in the non-vulnerable category at all, it simply takes the view that to present vulnerable people with the stark choice between significant risk of death from this virus or self-imposed isolation is pretty inhumane when it is within the power of the rest of us to do things to help mitigate that risk.
I'm not a lockdown fanatic, but neither am I of the opinion that it is feasible or reasonable simply to return to the status quo ante and let the more vulnerable members of our society face that choice. If you're talking about a holistic approach, you can't have one without a rather more sophisticated approach to the most vulnerable than you have outlined.

This is a parody, right?

[Burney]

This is a parody, right?

With Covid, the risk of death per 1000 in the 70-79 category is 8 (approx 10 for males). Now if your chances of dying whenever you got into an aeroplane were 1 in 100, you'd call that a pretty significant risk of death, wouldn't you? It'd probably make you pretty wary of flying, no?

So yes. 'Significant'.

[redgunamo]

Actually, you've made your parents sound like a colossal homo (as it were).

Or was that the point?

They are and they have - because they are fortunate enough to have the support network, technological skills and- let's face it - money to do so comfortably. Not everyone has. Equally, they are a couple and so issues of isolation and loneliness are less pressing to them than they are to single vulnerable people.
This 'oh, they should just lock themselves away so the rest of us can get on with it' attitude is profoundly callous, heartless and unthinking. These are actual people you're talking about here, not mere inconveniences.
I also worry about the factors you mention, but I think there's something deeply wrong with thinking the way you do about people.

[Sir C]

Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

It's not exactly the bubonic plague, mate. Two old dears in a nursing home died three weeks earlier than they would have otherwise and a number of people (including me) got a nasty cough.

[WES]

Take my folks, for instance. They are (touch wood) very healthy; mentally acute; active and are very much enjoying their later years. Given which, they - not unreasonably - would prefer not to expose themselves unduly to the risk of catching a virus that would have a very good chance of killing them.
As a result, I tend to take a dim view of people who boldly assert that they just should strap on a pair and potentially shorten the lives they are very much enjoying because the rest of us are finding the whole thing a bit tiresome. Now you can take the view that their determination to cling to life is selfish in a societal sense if you like, but you probably need to accept that your view comes from an equally selfish place.

Someone in the Tele the other day was considering these YouGov polls that show the large majority of the people support the current restrictions or think we should go farther. His point was that the questions are really loaded and geared towards that outcome.

The question he felt everyone should really be asked was, and I paraphrase 'are you prepared to significantly curtail the social aspect of your life, no longer travel abroad and add enormous amounts of debt in order to for a small reduction in the likelihood that you live into your 90s?'.

And he's right.