Are we sacrificing the young generation without reasonable justification?

[Bikeman78]

Yes, the economic consequences are severe, as are the restrictions on freedoms. yet 50% of the casualties are in care homes. My normal life takes me nowhere near one.

If I end up in a care home I hope my time there is as short as possible. I certainly wouldn't expect normal life to be put on hold so I could live a few months longer.

 

[O8yityityit]

And how long must everyone stay in their home for?

Bearing in mind a full vaccine is going to be years away, and that's if we get one at all, which is not certain or even likely.

Are you advocating permanent shutdown of the economy and nobody ever allowed outside, permanently?

If not, please explain what your plan is.

I'm not advocating anything..People can go out if they follow the guidance which as we have seen is as vague as you want it to be and being interpreted as people see fit.

It's a difficult situation and over dramatising things with statements like 'sacrificing a generation ' isn't helpful.

Whether you like it or not the government, which we all collectively put in place, makes the rules .
If you don't like it other countries are available......

 

[VauxhallandI]

What is a “gold plated” public sector pension? Or is it something your read in the Daily Mail.

And I agree that pension provision is very poor for future generations but that I think you’ll find most public sector pensions aren’t as good as you might think.

Correct, there are some massive misconceptions out there on this. You also have to remember that a lifetime in public service also means missing out on massive opportunities in the private sector.

The new pensions in public office are nothing like they used to be and even mine which is 20 years old is being eaten in to and down graded every other year.

It’s also a gamble in life if we get to see much of it anyway.

 

[AndyY]

I do not know why this is being turned into a generational issue. Why are we fighting amongst ourselves? I thought that the battle is against a virus which can overwhelm the health system if left to spread unchecked.

What was being asked of everyone was very simple: stay put for a few weeks, and the virus would burn itself out because it would have nowhere to spread, as happened in Wuhan, China. You are not asked to carry a heavy backpack and wade ashore while dodging bullets from the enemy.
But some people are so important/special that they cannot wait a few weeks for a house party, to go to the beach, to go on demonstration, etc. They justify their actions because a few people who made the rules broke them themselves, that there is injustice on another continent, etc., egged on by an irresponsible media.

If you really want to get even, please take it up with these selfish people (which come in all age groups) instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it won't be a "few weeks", it will potentially be years.

 

[yorkie]

@O8yityityit @leightonbd I'm curious to learn how you'd feel if you were confined to your homes for months on end at the age of 11/12, and with no idea when you will regain your freedom.

And just in case anyone is still trying to downplay the effects, see this article:

Coronavirus social-contact curbs 'put adolescents at risk'

Neuroscientists call for urgent attention to the well-being of young people isolated from friends.

www.bbc.co.uk

Reduced face-to-face contact among teenagers and their friends during the pandemic could have damaging long-term consequences, neuroscientists say.

At a sensitive time in life, their brain development, behaviour and mental health could suffer.

I don't want to get into an argument about semantics; people can use whatever language you want to use, but if I think anyone is attempting to deny how serious this is, I am going to disagree with them!

The fact is we have transferred a huge burden onto young people and we are risking long term damage.

... the virus would burn itself out because it would have nowhere to spread...

This is a myth! It's off topic for this thread; see the video I linked to here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-the-coronavirus-burn-out-in-the-uk.203758/#post-4551348 ; if you wish to disagree with the WHO feel free to reply to that thread and I will disagree with you there

as happened in Wuhan, China.

Not a valid comparison; see my post and the news sites I linked to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-the-coronavirus-burn-out-in-the-uk.203758/#post-4549772 and if you wish to disagree, let's do so on that thread

 

[NorthOxonian]

@O8yityityit @leightonbd I'm curious to learn how you'd feel if you were confined to your homes for months on end at the age of 11/12, and with no idea when you will regain your freedom.

And just in case anyone is still trying to downplay the effects, see this article:

Coronavirus social-contact curbs 'put adolescents at risk'

Neuroscientists call for urgent attention to the well-being of young people isolated from friends.

www.bbc.co.uk

I don't want to get into an argument about semantics; use whatever language you want to use, but if I think anyone is attempting to deny how serious this is, I'm going to disagree with them!

The fact is we have transferred a huge burden onto young people and we are rising long term damage.

In fairness, it could have been a lot worse. I feel the worst for Spanish children - many of whom were essentially locked in tiny high rise apartments with their families for months on end.

 

[yorkie]

In fairness, it could have been a lot worse. I feel the worst for Spanish children - many of whom were essentially locked in tiny high rise apartments with their families for months on end.

I know of kids who are locked in for months on end in this country.

 

[Freightmaster]

What was being asked of everyone was very simple: stay put for a few weeks, and the virus would burn itself out because it would have nowhere to spread, as happened in Wuhan, China.

As per Yorkie's reply above, that statement is utterly and completely untrue and I am frankly astounded
that anyone could have come to that conclusion when the government made it clear in March that the
purpose of the lockdown was simply to flatten the curve (to 'protect the NHS' per the famous slogan)
rather than to reduce the final death toll.

Even in countries such as New Zealand, which bravely decided to go for all out 'suppression' of the virus,
the virus has not "burnt itself out" - it has simply been prevented from taking hold in the first place, so those
countries are perceptually stuck in limbo.


Going back to the UK, the main reason that the death toll is so shockingly high here is not because
of adherence (or otherwise) to the lockdown by the general public, but the inability/unwillingness of
government (local and national) to protect the elderly in care homes and hospitals from infection.





MARK

 

[HSTEd]

I do not know why this is being turned into a generational issue. Why are we fighting amongst ourselves? I thought that the battle is against a virus which can overwhelm the health system if left to spread unchecked.

Because so far this virus has killed ~200 people under 40.
Thanks to triage it is extremely unlikely that the health service would collapse any more than it already did.

Some pensioners might die in extemporised wards in conference centres, but it wouldn't get much worse than that.

The NHS effectively cancelled the Nightingale hospital project because they were terrified of the PR complications of sending hopeless and near hopeless cases to a separate facility. Which is what the RAMC (Royal Army Medical Corps) wanted them for.

They then started whipping the public into hysteria to get them to stop going to hospital to save space, so huge numbers of people will now die from heart attacks, strokes and other treatable emregencies. And cancelled most of the cancer diagnosis service, condemning thousands to death, potentially decades early.

April was short 2700 cancer diagnoses per week.

So the NHS could avoid having the bad PR of a dedicated coronavirus hospice facility.

What was being asked of everyone was very simple: stay put for a few weeks,

Well currently we are up to what? 12 weeks. And no end in sight.

and the virus would burn itself out because it would have nowhere to spread, as happened in Wuhan, China. You are not asked to carry a heavy backpack and wade ashore while dodging bullets from the enemy.

Those soldiers were being sacrificed to a purpose.
Here people are being sacrificed in an attempt to deny reality.

This virus is not going to vanish, it will reemerge the second any of these actions are abandoned.
This is an eternal lockdown, which is why SAGE refuses to state what level of cases would be acceptable - because they know that the actual number is zero, which is simply not going to happen.

That is why everyone is putting their hopes in contact tracing - because its the only thing they can think of that might get them out of this mess.

Also Wuhan cases stopped because the CCP ordered them stopped.
People reporting cases of coronavirus today will be at risk of developing a tragic 9mm brain haemmorhage.
Also they were literally welding people into their buildings....

(EDIT: As of the 12th of June 2020, cinemas in China have not yet reopened - which tells you the true state of affairs in China)

But some people are so important/special that they cannot wait a few weeks for a house party, to go to the beach, to go on demonstration, etc. They justify their actions because a few people who made the rules broke them themselves, that there is injustice on another continent, etc., egged on by an irresponsible media.

A few weeks?
If the government hadnt lied to the public, and the press had bothered to read beyond the mitigation casualty figures in the Ferguson report to the strategy actually required from suppression - the people would never have accepted this insanity.

If you really want to get even, please take it up with these selfish people (which come in all age groups) instead.

Tens of thousands of missing cancer diagnoses, an epidemic of domestic violence, 20% of GDP lost in a month
The selfish people are those that sacrificed all this so between 250,000 and 700,000 pensioners can cling to life for about 10-15 years each. (Tending towards the lower end of that range)

(EDIT: Actually its between 180,000 and 640,000 pensioners now, because they've still managed to kill ~65,000)

In terms of £ per QALY this is an utter disaster of a public health initiative.
And the only way out now is to hope that a vaccine appears very soon.

Hope the Oxford vaccine can deliver a 'Miracle at the Isis'.
Even then we are looking at something not seen since the Great Depression.

EDIT #2: I heard someone on the radio suggesting the goal was to "eliminate" the virus.
Supposedly we have ~5,000 per day getting infected, and the cycle time is about a week.
Which means we have to have <~0.2/day getting infected before it can be eliminated.

At an Reff of .7 that would be reached in roughly ~28 cycles/weeks
At an Reff of .9 that would be reached in roughly ~96 cycles/weeks.

The virus is not going to be eliminated by lockdown measures in a reasonable amount of time.
Once community transmission was established, its stuck.

 

[O8yityityit]

Because so far this virus has killed ~200 people under 40.
Thanks to triage it is extremely unlikely that the health service would collapse any more than it already did.

Some pensioners might die in extemporised wards in conference centres, but it wouldn't get much worse than that.

The NHS effectively cancelled the Nightingale hospital project because they were terrified of the PR complications of sending hopeless and near hopeless cases to a separate facility. Which is what the RAMC (Royal Army Medical Corps) wanted them for.

They then started whipping the public into hysteria to get them to stop going to hospital to save space, so huge numbers of people will now die from heart attacks, strokes and other treatable emregencies. And cancelled most of the cancer diagnosis service, condemning thousands to death, potentially decades early.

April was short 2700 cancer diagnoses per week.

So the NHS could avoid having the bad PR of a dedicated coronavirus hospice facility.



Well currently we are up to what? 12 weeks. And no end in sight.



Those soldiers were being sacrificed to a purpose.
Here people are being sacrificed in an attempt to deny reality.

This virus is not going to vanish, it will reemerge the second any of these actions are abandoned.
This is an eternal lockdown, which is why SAGE refuses to state what level of cases would be acceptable - because they know that the actual number is zero, which is simply not going to happen.

That is why everyone is putting their hopes in contact tracing - because its the only thing they can think of that might get them out of this mess.

Also Wuhan cases stopped because the CCP ordered them stopped.
People reporting cases of coronavirus today will be at risk of developing a tragic 9mm brain haemmorhage.
Also they were literally welding people into their buildings....

(EDIT: As of the 12th of June 2020, cinemas in China have not yet reopened - which tells you the true state of affairs in China)



A few weeks?
If the government hadnt lied to the public, and the press had bothered to read beyond the mitigation casualty figures in the Ferguson report to the strategy actually required from suppression - the people would never have accepted this insanity.



Tens of thousands of missing cancer diagnoses, an epidemic of domestic violence, 20% of GDP lost in a month
The selfish people are those that sacrificed all this so between 250,000 and 700,000 pensioners can cling to life for about 10-15 years each. (Tending towards the lower end of that range)

(EDIT: Actually its between 180,000 and 640,000 pensioners now, because they've still managed to kill ~65,000)

In terms of £ per QALY this is an utter disaster of a public health initiative.
And the only way out now is to hope that a vaccine appears very soon.

Hope the Oxford vaccine can deliver a 'Miracle at the Isis'.
Even then we are looking at something not seen since the Great Depression.

EDIT #2: I heard someone on the radio suggesting the goal was to "eliminate" the virus.
Supposedly we have ~5,000 per day getting infected, and the cycle time is about a week.
Which means we have to have <~0.2/day getting infected before it can be eliminated.

At an Reff of .7 that would be reached in roughly ~28 cycles/weeks
At an Reff of .9 that would be reached in roughly ~96 cycles/weeks.

The virus is not going to be eliminated by lockdown measures in a reasonable amount of time.
Once community transmission was established, its stuck.

Nice long rambling post there, but I picked out one key point.
So your saying it the pensioners fault because we should let them all die so we can get back to near normal quicker.

Of course your other armchair solutions sound equally as great but it's a good job you'll never get anywhere near running our country!

 

[HSTEd]

So your saying it the pensioners fault because we should let them all die so we can get back to near normal quicker.

We will never get back to normal.
The damage that has been done can never be fully repaired.

The UK and its population will never be as wealthy as they would have been if this had not been done.

Of course your other armchair solutions sound equally as great but it's a good job you'll never get anywhere near running our country!

This is the first time in modern human history that anyone has attempted to brute force stop an epidemic, with community transmission established, with a "lockdown"
There is probably a reason that noone has ever tried this before - because its insane.

The misery inflicted by this policy will far outstrip anything imposed by the virus.
People are acting like this thing kills like its smallpox, and it simply doesn't.

The Hong Kong flu in '68 killed 80,000 in Britain and didn't even manage to cause a recession, and the vast majority of the population has never even heard of the damn thing.

 

[Jamiescott1]

I work in a private school and we've had years 1 and 6 back on site for 2 weeks and years 10 and 12 come back on monday.

The government guidance for years 2 to 5 is very vague. Were trying to get them back on site from 22nd for the last 2 weeks of term but having issues with our insurance company

 

[MikeWM]

This is the first time in modern human history that anyone has attempted to brute force stop an epidemic, with community transmission established, with a "lockdown"
There is probably a reason that noone has ever tried this before - because its insane.

Exactly so.

And yet almost every country in the world has gone down the same path. Either we’ve had simultaneous worldwide mass hysteria, or something more sinister is going on. Or both. I find both options rather terrifying, certainly moreso than any virus. (well, maybe not something like airborne ebola, if that ever happened - that would be something to be very worried about!)

 

[HSTEd]

Exactly so.

And yet almost every country in the world has gone down the same path. Either we’ve had simultaneous worldwide mass hysteria, or something more sinister is going on. Or both. I find both options rather terrifying, certainly moreso than any virus. (well, maybe not something like airborne ebola, if that ever happened - that would be something to be very worried about!)

Well China has a serious public acceptane problem if it allows a huge number of older people to die - leaving aside the demographic collapse problem they are already staring at, filial loyalty is a major thing in traditional culture.
Letting huge numbers of older people die would endanger the implicit "Mandate of Heaven" held by the government - they rule because things keep getting better and the people as a result don't really care about political rights etc etc.
If that stops, it falls apart.

As for the west, we now have a population of voters that has never experienced significant mortality from infectious disease.
There hasn't been a serious epidemic in the general population since Polio, and not onet his bad since the Spanish flu.

People just aren't accustomed to losing people to transmissable disease any more.
They are also not accustomed to poverty, and what an economic collapse actually delivers - noone alive has lived through a major depression like the Great Depression or the Long Depression.

So losing people to infectious disease is an intolerable novelty to them, whilst they hae no conception of what the consequences of this strategy might actually be like - and to be honest people often think descriptions of poverty are like the Four Yorkshireman sketch.

 

[trebor79]

As a (so far, healthy) 76 year old, I agree that under 25s are bearing an unfair cost, and risking unfair long-term harm. I'd like to see schools and universities re-opening, with well-considered measures to protect vulnerable teachers. That could mean, in universities for example, only on-line lectures, because lecture theatres will spread infection quickly among the students, and thence to the staff and the public. But lecture theatres are obsolete technology anyway. Sensibly distanced seminars and libraries seem to me practicable.

I completely and utterly disagree with the notion that lecture theatres are less effective than lectures delivered by video. There is absolutely no way I'd have learned as effectively sat in my student bedroom in my underpants, staring at a screen all day and with no interaction with my course mates. A lot of learning happens casually in between lectures, during coffee breaks etc "I didn't quite understand that particular derivation, did you get it?" "Yes, the key is ..." Plus interaction and asking questions via video is just much less effective. And the lecturer can't really do "chalk and talk" which is far more engaging and effective than flipping through a PowerPoint.

 

[BJames]

I completely and utterly disagree with the notion that lecture theatres are less effective than lectures delivered by video. There is absolutely no way of have learned as effectively sat in my student bedroom in my underpants, staring at a screen Al day and with no interaction with my course mates. A lot of learning happens casually in between lectures, during coffee breaks etc "I didn't quite understand that particular derivation, did you get it?" "Yes, the key is ..." Plus interaction and asking questions via video is just much less effective. And the lecturer can't really do "chalk and talk" which is far more engaging and effective than flipping through a PowerPoint.

As someone at University at the moment and having experienced both, I second this. There's no comparison really - in person teaching is the proper way of doing it, online learning is a temporary solution at best, and I can't wait to get back. I know this opinion is shared by most on the University's online Facebook groups and the like.

 

[HSTEd]

As someone at University at the moment and having experienced both, I second this. There's no comparison really - in person teaching is the proper way of doing it, online learning is a temporary solution at best, and I can't wait to get back. I know this opinion is shared by most on the University's online Facebook groups and the like.

To be honest when I was doing Chemistry, and then Physics, at University, the one hour of tutorial (academic with group of six or seven students) was more valuable than the 10-12 hours of lectures I got a week.

 

[Nicholas43]

I completely and utterly disagree with the notion that lecture theatres are [always] less effective than lectures delivered by video.

So do I (at least, with the addition of the always). And I re-iterate that I think young people are being disproportionately sacrificed. I merely meant (which is however a side issue diverting somewhat from the centre of this thread) that, possibly, when students get back to university in September / October 2020, some things may need to be done a bit different from what they were in September / October 2019. Eg, not putting an elderly and wheezy lecturer at the front of a stuffy lecture theatre (if there still are such - there were in my day). Also, I wish we could hear much more, soon, about determined planning for enriching summer activities for school-age children.

 

[Ianno87]

I completely and utterly disagree with the notion that lecture theatres are less effective than lectures delivered by video. There is absolutely no way I'd have learned as effectively sat in my student bedroom in my underpants, staring at a screen all day and with no interaction with my course mates. A lot of learning happens casually in between lectures, during coffee breaks etc "I didn't quite understand that particular derivation, did you get it?" "Yes, the key is ..." Plus interaction and asking questions via video is just much less effective. And the lecturer can't really do "chalk and talk" which is far more engaging and effective than flipping through a PowerPoint.

As someone at University at the moment and having experienced both, I second this. There's no comparison really - in person teaching is the proper way of doing it, online learning is a temporary solution at best, and I can't wait to get back. I know this opinion is shared by most on the University's online Facebook groups and the like.

Thirded.

 

[317 forever]

As a society, we have deiced we are not interested in any kind of health issue, unless it's the virus.

Cancer? Go home and die.
Mental health? Pull yourself together and deal with it.
Heart attack? Bad luck
Stroke? Read this guide but you're on your own
Need a lump checking out? Hahaha you must be joking
Consultation with your GP? Don't be so ridiculous, don't you realise people are dying, you're so selfish!

It is an appalling state of affairs and my great fear is, I can't see an end to it. If anything it's getting worse!

This is indeed illustrated by the number of excess deaths being about 1.5 times the number of Corona deaths.

 

[NorthOxonian]

To be honest when I was doing Chemistry, and then Physics, at University, the one hour of tutorial (academic with group of six or seven students) was more valuable than the 10-12 hours of lectures I got a week.

This comes closer to my experience (albeit I'm lucky enough to go to a university where most such tutorials are in groups of two or three). Online lectures aren't quite as useful as physical ones, but I often prefer them. I can rewatch the lecture if I need to, I can change the speed of the lecture (I prefer 1.25x speed for most lecturers), and there's the flexibility to learn the content whenever. I could never focus properly in early morning lectures, so being able to take in the lecture later in the day does make my life easier.

That said, such an approach isn't appropriate for everyone, loses the social aspect, and certainly isn't suitable for younger age groups.

 

[BJames]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Scotland returning to normal thread or this one but there's a bit of crossover.

Regarding Scottish Education, this appeared today:

SCOTLAND'S schools are unlikely to return to normal before next summer, the Education Secretary has said.

John Swinney stressed he did not want part-time schooling to continue for "a minute longer than necessary", but social distancing means changes have to be made.

He said there will be a legal requirement for parents to send their children to school, but no legal requirement to enforce home learning.
It comes after union leaders warned blended learning, in which pupils only attend school on certain days or weeks, could last the entire school year when pupils return on August 11.
Next year's exams could also be cancelled or pushed back.
Mr Swinney told the BBC's Sunday Politics Scotland: "I don't want it to go on for a minute longer than it's necessary, because I accept that the blended learning model is not as good a model as the one that we had before coronavirus had the effect that it had, resulting in lockdown."
But he said it was "unlikely" things would return to normal before the end of the school year, adding: "We'll have to maintain the social distancing approaches for some considerable time to come.

"There will be changes and differences in the way we deliver education as a consequence of the requirements of physically distancing."
Mr Swinney said it will be a legal requirement for parents to send their children to school, but "considered discussions" will take place with families.

Source: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18516384.scotlands-schools-unlikely-return-normal-next-summer/

I see the repetition of the "We'll have to maintain the social distancing approaches for some considerable time to come." I can only speak for my local area in England but I'd love to invite the minister down to my local parks and shops where they won't need a private investigator to work out that social distancing is being ignored by the vast majority already. Putting it into schools and making life so difficult for those who are at minimal risk is not justifiable in my opinion when so many are ignoring it outside of the education setting.

A blended learning model for the autumn term would be fine because at least people know that the next term is going to be ok. But another year of this for schools? It's not good for children's education no matter how prepared schools profess to be.

 

[HSTEd]

This comes closer to my experience (albeit I'm lucky enough to go to a university where most such tutorials are in groups of two or three). Online lectures aren't quite as useful as physical ones, but I often prefer them. I can rewatch the lecture if I need to, I can change the speed of the lecture (I prefer 1.25x speed for most lecturers), and there's the flexibility to learn the content whenever. I could never focus properly in early morning lectures, so being able to take in the lecture later in the day does make my life easier.

That said, such an approach isn't appropriate for everyone, loses the social aspect, and certainly isn't suitable for younger age groups.

If we had videos I would prefer to reduce the number of lecture hours in favour of as many hours of worked solutions as possible.

 

[Enthusiast]

The Hong Kong flu in '68 killed 80,000 in Britain and didn't even manage to cause a recession, and the vast majority of the population has never even heard of the damn thing.

I think the highest figure for the UK I have seen is 30,000. But no matter because I agree wholeheartedly with you.

As I said in other posts, I remember the Hong Kong 'flu epidemic. As you say, it caused no recession because nothing much altered. People knew it was about and were told to be careful to avoid people who were coughing/sneezing around them. There was nothing like the hysteria that has been attached to this malarkey. I also recall the 1957 "Asian 'flu" epidemic. This was similar and was treated similarly. Both had an economic effect because the government had to pay out quite large sums in sick pay. The virus infected many schoolchildren, though deaths among that age group were rare and schools were only closed when infection numbers became too large for the school to properly function. In short life went on almost as normal.

This is the first time in modern human history that anyone has attempted to brute force stop an epidemic, with community transmission established, with a "lockdown"
There is probably a reason that noone has ever tried this before - because its insane.

I am rapidly coming to that conclusion. I was open-minded at the beginning (though I never believed the virus would be "defeated" by isolation). I was mindful of the economic damage that would follow but did not have much of a grip on the collateral (non-virus) health damage that would ensue. I also had no idea that restrictions would last so long and certainly had no inkling that schools would close for six months or more.

The lockdown does not seem to have been particularly successful, >40k deaths, the worst in Europe; an infection rate still running at well over a thousand a day despite twelve weeks of restrictions. I had an idea from the beginning that the virus was something that had to be lived with (or, unfortunately in a small proportion of cases, died with). I keep saying that the population's expectation that the government can protect them all from everything (something you touched on in greater depth) is inane. The choice for the government is simple - it either lifts restrictions and allows life to get back to normal - and I mean normal, not some new fangled arrangement where people are scared witless to go near each other or to handle something that somebody else has touched - or it presides over the economic and social destruction of the nation. The young will be particularly hard hit by the latter. They have longer to live, more to do and more to lose. We should all think about that.

 

[Yew]

Indeed, given that Boris is already jumping to the sunk cost fallacy of "but if we stop now, the last 12 weeks will have been for nothing", it does seem like he's running out of good arguments for it. About the best I can think of for control, is that there could be a promising treatment (or vaccine candidate, but that's already been discussed across the forum) that could reduce mortality before a controlled spread is allowed.

 

[6862]

My perspective on this is as a postgraduate research student in my early 20s. I am firmly of the view that a drastic lockdown and crashing the economy is going to have a disproportionate effect on the young from a financial perspective, as well as from the perspective of education. But then there is also the fact that young people are perhaps more likely to be able to redirect their career than older people.

In my case, 'social distancing' seems to have made continuing my lab based research impossible, so my career will have to take a new direction. It will mean losing any hope of a decent career in the area I was hoping to qualify in, and I don't exactly have many transferable skills, so it will be difficult, but I hope that in a few years I might have managed to get into some sort of new career. An older person losing their job in a sector they have worked in for 20 or 30 years is likely to find it far harder to adapt to a new type of work.

Overall I think this self-inflicted crisis (lockdown) will affect young people more (who are more likely to be employed in a sector which is now gone), but hopefully we will be in a better position to adapt to the so-called 'new normal' (a ridiculous concept) than older people.

 

[Huntergreed]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Scotland returning to normal thread or this one but there's a bit of crossover.

Regarding Scottish Education, this appeared today:

Source: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18516384.scotlands-schools-unlikely-return-normal-next-summer/

I see the repetition of the "We'll have to maintain the social distancing approaches for some considerable time to come." I can only speak for my local area in England but I'd love to invite the minister down to my local parks and shops where they won't need a private investigator to work out that social distancing is being ignored by the vast majority already. Putting it into schools and making life so difficult for those who are at minimal risk is not justifiable in my opinion when so many are ignoring it outside of the education setting.

A blended learning model for the autumn term would be fine because at least people know that the next term is going to be ok. But another year of this for schools? It's not good for children's education no matter how prepared schools profess to be.

An unusually reassuring briefing from Sturgeon today, who stated multiple times that she “absolutely does not envisage this blended learning going on for a whole year” and that her utmost priority would be to get all children back in school 100% of the time.

Finally someone has seen sense!

 

[Scotrail12]

An unusually reassuring briefing from Sturgeon today, who stated multiple times that she “absolutely does not envisage this blended learning going on for a whole year” and that her utmost priority would be to get all children back in school 100% of the time.

Finally someone has seen sense!

Interesting. Good to see some progress.

 

[BJames]

An unusually reassuring briefing from Sturgeon today, who stated multiple times that she “absolutely does not envisage this blended learning going on for a whole year” and that her utmost priority would be to get all children back in school 100% of the time.

Finally someone has seen sense!

This is excellent. Glad to hear someone in politics finally has a clear head. We can't go on with this schools problem for a year.