Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,696
And I expect the older generation will be expecting you to pay for it when they realise their pensions have taken a bashing!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Should the young shield?
- Thread starter Scotrail12
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
There is an argument to be made that the younger should be able to get out and progress their careers, rebuild the economy and increase their future earning potential to maximize their future contributions to the welfare of the aging population.
Social distancing for a long term could ultimately hit the bith rate (e.g. if new relationships cannot form), worsening the problem.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The way out is a vaccine. Until we are sure one will not be possible within a reasonable horizon (6-12 months), we are tiding over. It presently looks quite good that at least one of the candidates, possibly more, will be effective, and that is a "proper" way out without mass deaths.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,696
Well that's not an option at the moment as there isn't one available yet. We shouldn't be pinning our hopes on that whilst we continue to damage people's lives and futures.
I agree. Children need to be back at school a.s.a.p. The damage done to their chances thus far should not be allowed to be exacerbated by doom-mongering about what might happen.
Lockdown might have had a short term impact in the other direction...
Who is suggesting that they shouldn't go back when the hoildays finish?
We've seen a suggestion that in order to enable them to do so, something else might have to give.
It's been suggested that we have to actually make track and trace work properly so going back to school doesn't lead to a "second wave".
But both of these seem to make the assumption that getting children back in school has to happen, and indeed even if children didn't need to get back to their education (which they do), many parents need children back in school so they can go to work.
And even if / when there is one, it's going to take years (probably decades) to eliminate this virus. The lockdown and mask enthusiasts in many cases seem to think that as soon as a vaccine is approved that's it - virus immediately eliminated, and back to normal.
The reality is that the virus will be around for years even in a best-case scenario - and the only government which seems to accept that and be planning accordingly is in Sweden.
Yes, Maternity units may be busy in December/January...
Scotrail12
Member
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 835
It faltered years ago - he got cut from Strictly in 2014. He's been jumping around the reality shows since and otherwise spends his free time on social media.
Shared his tweet just to show how crazy some people's ideas are in terms of dealing with the virus. No surprise that almost every vote here is "no".
It is somewhat concerning that six people think it's a good idea though...
Bantamzen
Established Member
Its concerning that anyone dreamt up the idea, let alone that some have saluted the idea. We seem to be moving from trying to properly manage this outbreak, to finding someone else to blame and punish.
The last attempt to properly manage it (in the terms of having a logical justification) was the initial restrictions to give the NHS time to build up capacity. Since then, here has been no clear logic at all, with everything being based on the implied-but-not-stated-specifically aim of eradicating the virus within a relatively short timescale. Which is impossible.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's clear to me we are following this:
Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance
What the Next 18 Months Can Look Like, if Leaders Buy Us Time
medium.com
It's clear to me we are following this:
Coronavirus: The Hammer and the Dance
What the Next 18 Months Can Look Like, if Leaders Buy Us Time
Yes, but the aim has to be the implied eradication, doesn't it? Otherwise this would be pointless.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No, the aim, if you read the article, is to maintain a constant, acceptable number of cases until a vaccine is available.
But that's just the elimination strategy, isn't it? It cannot be guaranteed that a vaccine is ever going to be available, and even if one is it could well take years or decades to eliminate it - the timescales are such that following this strategy is going to lead ot economic ruin for a lot of countries.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,696
That article is quite old, seem to remember reading it in March. A lot of new evidence about the virus has come to light since then.
Sorry one of those six was unintentionally me with fat fingers on the phone screen. Was trying to hit the "no"
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,650
While I suspect the original comment was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, what it has exposed quite starkly is the difference in attitude to the young and the old.
While effectively losing a year out of your life would be traumatic for any age group, what I do not accept is that it would be worse for the young than the old. The young have the rest of their lives to get over it, the old do not. Yes, the young are suffering from the lack of social contact, but the old suffer even more. It is well recognised that social activities are one of the most important ways of warding off old-age dementia, for example.
In my experience, most young people are fairly resilient. The problem is not the young themselves, but the snowflake parents who are over-protective of their little darlings. When very young, a parent's role is to protect their children from life's dangers. But as they grow up, it should be to teach them that life throws brickbats at you, and to deal with it. Unfortunately these days, many parents remain over-protective for far too long. It is noticeable that most of the furor about this suggestion has come from parents, not the young themselves.
All the fuss about the missed exams, for example, is totally ridiculous. It is not that long ago that there were serious suggestions to abolish exams altogether, and to base grades on performance during the year. In other words, almost exactly what is currently being done now. I knew several in my year group who suffered seriously from exam fear, with one who was physically sick during several exams - he had to retake a number of exams as a result of not being able to complete them the first time around. He would surely have been delighted by the current arrangements.
It is also most peoples' experience that almost nothing they learn at school is of any use at work, bar the basics of maths and english. Most jobs are so specialised that most of what you need to know is taught on-the-job. There are very, very few jobs that you can do straight out of school with no training. All that exams prove is that you are capable of learning a subject. How much of the history, geography, french, english literature, biology, chemistry, etc etc that I was forced to learn at school has been of any use to me as an electrical engineer - zilch. Not that long ago, most children finished their education at 14, so I do not see losing a year or two's education as a major disaster (a far bigger problem is the children being at home is preventing their parents from going to work).
Perhaps the suggestion should have been to put the children and their friends in bubbles, socially-isolated from their families and the rest of society. We could call them boarding schools. Used to be quite popular at one time. And for those worried about their children's future, apparently it is very good for their career prospects.
In most countries, the old are cherished. Unfortunately, in this country, the attitude towards the old stinks. They have had their time, they are no longer productive, they and their pensions are just a burden on society, so lock them away in the cheapest possible way. And it is exactly this that has caused so many deaths. Once the virus gets into one of these stack-them-high budget old-peoples' homes, as inevitably it will, even with the best will in the world there is just no way of stopping it spreading. But who cares - it is the young who matter.
Expecting young people to lock themselves away causes an uproar. Expecting the 50+ to lock themselves away likewise is dropped like a hot potato. But expecting the old to lock themselves away causes barely a murmur, and indeed has been actively proposed by several on other threads. Let the old fend for themselves seems to be a common thread.
While effectively losing a year out of your life would be traumatic for any age group, what I do not accept is that it would be worse for the young than the old. The young have the rest of their lives to get over it, the old do not. Yes, the young are suffering from the lack of social contact, but the old suffer even more. It is well recognised that social activities are one of the most important ways of warding off old-age dementia, for example.
In my experience, most young people are fairly resilient. The problem is not the young themselves, but the snowflake parents who are over-protective of their little darlings. When very young, a parent's role is to protect their children from life's dangers. But as they grow up, it should be to teach them that life throws brickbats at you, and to deal with it. Unfortunately these days, many parents remain over-protective for far too long. It is noticeable that most of the furor about this suggestion has come from parents, not the young themselves.
All the fuss about the missed exams, for example, is totally ridiculous. It is not that long ago that there were serious suggestions to abolish exams altogether, and to base grades on performance during the year. In other words, almost exactly what is currently being done now. I knew several in my year group who suffered seriously from exam fear, with one who was physically sick during several exams - he had to retake a number of exams as a result of not being able to complete them the first time around. He would surely have been delighted by the current arrangements.
It is also most peoples' experience that almost nothing they learn at school is of any use at work, bar the basics of maths and english. Most jobs are so specialised that most of what you need to know is taught on-the-job. There are very, very few jobs that you can do straight out of school with no training. All that exams prove is that you are capable of learning a subject. How much of the history, geography, french, english literature, biology, chemistry, etc etc that I was forced to learn at school has been of any use to me as an electrical engineer - zilch. Not that long ago, most children finished their education at 14, so I do not see losing a year or two's education as a major disaster (a far bigger problem is the children being at home is preventing their parents from going to work).
Perhaps the suggestion should have been to put the children and their friends in bubbles, socially-isolated from their families and the rest of society. We could call them boarding schools. Used to be quite popular at one time. And for those worried about their children's future, apparently it is very good for their career prospects.
In most countries, the old are cherished. Unfortunately, in this country, the attitude towards the old stinks. They have had their time, they are no longer productive, they and their pensions are just a burden on society, so lock them away in the cheapest possible way. And it is exactly this that has caused so many deaths. Once the virus gets into one of these stack-them-high budget old-peoples' homes, as inevitably it will, even with the best will in the world there is just no way of stopping it spreading. But who cares - it is the young who matter.
Expecting young people to lock themselves away causes an uproar. Expecting the 50+ to lock themselves away likewise is dropped like a hot potato. But expecting the old to lock themselves away causes barely a murmur, and indeed has been actively proposed by several on other threads. Let the old fend for themselves seems to be a common thread.
But there is a big difference between a situation where pupils know from the start that they will be assessed throughout the year, and one where they believe they will be assessed entirely by exams at the end.
The penalty now for not having put in the effort to revise for mock exams, for example, is now far greater than could have been expected.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not even particularly old (sort of hovering around the start of what we call middle age) and I completely agree with @Belperpete. I don't support the premise "should the young shield", but I do think the young are much more resilient than people think. In particular under-10s or thereabouts just need to be loved and know they are loved, and they manage to cope with near enough anything.
It's much more difficult for teenagers, but there is plenty of time to recover, as he says. Many, many teenagers fail their exams for many reasons, and with the right help it is possible to pull things back and have a successful life - my Dad being a good example. It doesn't feel like that at the time, but it is, always was and always will be true.
I don't agree with the premise in the thread subject, but I do think we need to stop "hand-wringing" and just deal with the practicalities.
True. But what you've got there is a life lesson, they sometimes come in the most unexpected form, and that life lesson might do that person some good later.
They'll find an alternative path if we help them do so. Or they might find their intended path still works, because their sixth form college or university will perhaps take into account the difficulties they've had. Or perhaps they might find something unexpected as a benefit - for instance, I was very young for my year and went to university a bit too early and a bit too immature, and would have hugely benefitted from a year out and going a year later (other than that I was the last year not to pay fees). If I'd been forced into that unexpectedly my experience may have been better overall.
It's much more difficult for teenagers, but there is plenty of time to recover, as he says. Many, many teenagers fail their exams for many reasons, and with the right help it is possible to pull things back and have a successful life - my Dad being a good example. It doesn't feel like that at the time, but it is, always was and always will be true.
I don't agree with the premise in the thread subject, but I do think we need to stop "hand-wringing" and just deal with the practicalities.
True. But what you've got there is a life lesson, they sometimes come in the most unexpected form, and that life lesson might do that person some good later.
They'll find an alternative path if we help them do so. Or they might find their intended path still works, because their sixth form college or university will perhaps take into account the difficulties they've had. Or perhaps they might find something unexpected as a benefit - for instance, I was very young for my year and went to university a bit too early and a bit too immature, and would have hugely benefitted from a year out and going a year later (other than that I was the last year not to pay fees). If I'd been forced into that unexpectedly my experience may have been better overall.
Not disagreeing with he above - things can often be made to work out, and the bonus is that you never really know what would have happened otherwise.
However - I would not attempt to argue to someone in that position that having exams cancelled doesn't matter because after all in alternative universe there might have been no exams planned in the first place.
It does matter. But that doesn't mean that they can't and shouldn't try to find a way to get where they want to be despite it.
Well of course it was. The over-50s vote and more importantly a big chunk of them vote Tory!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wouldn't say it doesn't matter. But we have to approach it positively with young people, along the lines of "yes, s*** has happened, but that's done and can't be undone, so let's help you plan how to get where you wanted to get a different way".
Done that way and the adverse mental impact is likely to be low once the initial shock is done with (just like someone who failed their exams due to their own fault, really). If adults cry and hand-wring about how it's going to wreck their future (when it clearly isn't, just delay it a bit in some cases), that's exactly what it'll do.
Quite - and I would guess that it'll particularly affect boys. I can't imagine I am the only one who dossed around for a lot of the time but did well enough in exams to get reasonable grades. This does seem to be a thing which boys tend to do! I did it at university as well to an extent. In both cases, if I'd just been assessed on what I'd done up to that point then I wouldn't have come out of it well.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
The "problem" with the old is that they have nothing to lose with respect to education and career as they are retired. And yes, this should be celebrated rather than lock them away.
The "problem" with the young is that they are starting out in life and need direction, stability and opportunities. Forcing them to shield will either cause mass rebellion or increase anxiety/depression. In my experience, youngsters present with anxiety disorders more these days than when I was growing up - and that's nothing to do with Covid.
The young need to be allowed to get on with their lives. They need employment opportunities.
The "problem" with the young is that they are starting out in life and need direction, stability and opportunities. Forcing them to shield will either cause mass rebellion or increase anxiety/depression. In my experience, youngsters present with anxiety disorders more these days than when I was growing up - and that's nothing to do with Covid.
The young need to be allowed to get on with their lives. They need employment opportunities.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
I was the dimwit at school and scraped through some of my CSE's (pre-GCSE's). Later in life, I did O/A levels through night school and exams relevant to my job. I think I came out alright in the end
The answer to the thread question is no. I would be fascinated to hear the opinions of the five (noting @adc82140 's accident 
) who believe the young should shield.
If we were to take that ridiculous idea beyond hypothetical anyway, I can tell you as a young person that it quite simply would never work. The restrictions are generally not being abided by even now, telling young people they need to stay indoors and will not be allowed out will be ignored unless you had police and the army down every single road stopping people going out - and even then some would try their luck.
) who believe the young should shield.If we were to take that ridiculous idea beyond hypothetical anyway, I can tell you as a young person that it quite simply would never work. The restrictions are generally not being abided by even now, telling young people they need to stay indoors and will not be allowed out will be ignored unless you had police and the army down every single road stopping people going out - and even then some would try their luck.
- Status