Share this content
21

On the way out at 70

No hope for oldies

Didn't find your answer?

Thank goodness the PM has taken a more pragmatic view about the Coronavirus measures today and not pursued the potential isolation of over seventies at home for four months. This idea can only have originated from a younger and niaive generation that cannot believe life is worth living when when you get to 50 and anyone over 70 is long, long ovedue for the celestial journey and should sit tight in their care homes until the courier comes to collect them.

Perhaps Boris pondered on the practical issues of keeping his own father locked up for four months, something that was never going to happen, and so he appears to have wisely avoided this type of embarassing confrontation.

Whilst I am not quite 70 yet, I have never spent a night in hospital and my only prescribed medicine is for a condition that other younger men pay a fortune over the counter for. I am nowhere near ready to be put out to pasture and neither are tens of thousands of over 70's who are fit and healty and run some of the biggest and most successful businesses in this country. The House of Lords and Commons are overflowing with over 70's and many voluntary organsiations rely on the services of retried people to even exist.

I am with the Government on this and think it is important for people OF ANY AGE to reduce unecessary social and phsical contact with others as much as possible and take simple precautions to prevent the virus from entering their bodies.

Let us hope that those who suggested banishing over 70's to a twilight existence ponder on the fact that one day they will be over 70 themselves. Would they really miss out on the opportunities to tour China when they are 79 and come back and give presemtations (my mother), tow their boat down through France to their Spanish Villa at 81 (a client of mine) or even design and have a new home built at 82 (another client of mine).

Age is not the key factor in dealing with this virus, common sense is.

 

Replies (21)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

RLI
By lionofludesch
16th Mar 2020 18:43

It's one thing to self-isolate for a fotnit when you're probably feeling a bit under the weather anyway.

Quite another to stay indoors for four months if you feel grand.

Crazy idea.

Thanks (2)
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
16th Mar 2020 20:28

While I consider 4 months to be OTT (but since we really don't know how this is going to pan out perhaps not) I consider the idea in principle to be sound. Clearly the over-70s are the highest risk group. There will be exceptions of very healthy 80+ year-olds and younger people that are vulnerable due to pre-existing conditions (who should be taking the same precautions as the elderly). So, you reduce the vulnerable's risk of exposure - keeping them alive and at the same time de-stressing the NHS - while allowing the fit and healthy to develop community immunity. The elderly and others can then be 'released' back into the community with much reduced exposure. The theory sounds good, the reality, who knows?

Thanks (3)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
RLI
By lionofludesch
16th Mar 2020 22:21

The reality?

Not going to happen.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By graydjames
17th Mar 2020 09:29

I completely agree with Wilson Philips on this - (I myself am 67 so not far off the age group in question). Anyone can give anecdotal evidence of over 70s who are very fit and well or have gone further by achieving great things, but this misses the point. The more elderly, as well as those with serious underlying conditions, are plainly the greatest at risk groups. Minimising infections in that group not only reduces the burden on the NHS but it reduces the risk for everyone.

This is a matter of being responsible.

The news channels were talking about these being Draconian measures, but compared to several European countries the measures were woolly, vague and lacked any sanction whatsoever. I foresee too many people who will not heed the advice.

Thanks (3)
avatar
By Richard Grant
17th Mar 2020 07:06

Well said.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neiltonks
17th Mar 2020 07:42

Not sure on this one. Is it really so wrong to take special care of those known to be most at risk? Surely the reason for it was to ensure that the over-70s don't end up 'on the way out' because of the virus.

Thanks (1)
Replying to neiltonks:
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Mar 2020 08:31

Ensure? There's nothing sure about this.

What about their mental health? How's that going to be affected by sitting in the same room for four months? With no guarantee that there won't be another four months after that.

Longer life? Or does it just seem longer?

Thanks (1)
avatar
By ms998
17th Mar 2020 08:56

I'd give the government some credit here.

The escalation has been ramped up according to events.

1. If ill stay at home
2. Those at risk reduce social exclusion
3. Start flagging the possibility of a lockdown for over 70s (those at risk)

At time of posting this was where we were

Since then
4. Strengthen social exclusion measures

Potential next steps
5. lockdown for at risk groups
6. lockdown for everyone.

Seems a reasonable course of actions?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bernard michael
17th Mar 2020 09:57

Including those MP's over 70 attending Parliament

Also

How would such a lock down be enforced- perhaps call up the Boy Scouts ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to bernard michael:
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Mar 2020 10:12

bernard michael wrote:

How would such a lock down be enforced- perhaps call up the Boy Scouts ?

It can't be a 100% lockdown, can it ?

Folk have to go out to get food, go to work - otherwise we get more panic buying than the panic buying that there will inevitably be.

Wouldn't the Boy Scouts be locked down ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
Lone Wolf
By Lone_Wolf
17th Mar 2020 12:05

lionofludesch wrote:

Wouldn't the Boy Scouts be locked down ?


They are, we got an email yesterday.
Thanks (0)
avatar
By thomas34
17th Mar 2020 11:27

Well said Tornado. HMG's announcement (at the weekend I think) caused a level of panic buying yesterday. The measure is unworkable because (like the French have indicated today) there will always be exceptions. In the area I live there are almost 100% of people over 70 and the one person under that age would have a full time job delivering food to the others over a 4 month period.

Have we been told how many 70 and over year olds have contracted (and recovered from) the virus? Boris has done a pretty good job so far but I'm afraid he should have kept his powder dry on this one.

Thanks (0)
By Duggimon
17th Mar 2020 12:20

10% of over 70s who contract COVID-19 die. 15% of over 80s who contract COVID-19 die. Up to 80% of the population are expected to contract the virus.

While the idea of a four month lockdown is unsustainable, it's only sensible for those most at risk to at least be aware and minimise their contact with the grubby unwashed masses while this is going on, in order to not die.

Of course, the figures mean 9/10 of over 70s who are unlucky enough to get it will survive it, but 9/10 isn't that high a proportion when we're talking life or death.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Duggimon:
Tornado
By Tornado
17th Mar 2020 12:48

"Up to 80% of the population are expected to contract the virus"

What a load of rubbish !

Today's facts -

Population of China = 1.386 Billion
Total Coronavirus cases to date = 80,881
Total of people recovered to date = 68,709
Total deaths to date = 3,226

Scaremongering seems to be a popular pastime these days but the facts do not back up ridiculous claims.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
Lone Wolf
By Lone_Wolf
17th Mar 2020 13:29

Whilst taking your point about the scaremongering that goes on, in fairness to Duggimon the 80% figure is what has been toted as being the worst case scenario for the UK.

Merkel was bandying about figures of 70% for Germany.

Of course, we just don't know what will happen and these are merely projections - presumably from experts in the field.

As for "today's facts" - are we really putting any sort of reliance on the figures China are reporting?

If you were to get your auditors hat on for a second, would you be placing reliance on the figures China are giving you, or would you be wanting stringent testing to confirm those?

Thanks (1)
Replying to Lone_Wolf:
Tornado
By Tornado
17th Mar 2020 13:52

"As for "today's facts" - are we really putting any sort of reliance on the figures China are reporting?"

There are up to date reports available for just about every country if you don't like the China statistics.

The current rate of infection in the UK is 22.7 people per million of population. A long way from 80% of the population.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
17th Mar 2020 16:14

Depends upon the rate of spread, if 3-4 day doubling of infected population were to continue (though I think we are no longer measuring numbers infected unless admitted to hospital so we will likely have no real idea) and if say 10% of those infected require hospital treatment, then it does not take that many more weeks at the growth rates seen up to now for the NHS not to have either the required ventilators or staff, at that juncture the mortality rate for those needing admitted to hospital goes through the roof.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
Tornado
By Tornado
17th Mar 2020 16:44

Today on the BBC Website -

"The UK government's chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance is appearing at the House of Common's health committee.

He tells MPs that the UK should start to see rates of infection come down in two to three weeks.

He says it would be "a good outcome" if the number of coronavirus-related deaths in the UK can be kept to below 20,000.

I make that a death rate of about 1 person in 3250 of the population and it is likely that those that do die will have had some underlying medical conditions anyway.

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Mar 2020 16:53

DJKL wrote:

Depends upon the rate of spread, if 3-4 day doubling of infected population were to continue ......

We would, of course, soon run out of folk to infect.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tornado:
By Duggimon
18th Mar 2020 08:27

Tornado wrote:

"Up to 80% of the population are expected to contract the virus"

What a load of rubbish !

Today's facts -

Population of China = 1.386 Billion
Total Coronavirus cases to date = 80,881
Total of people recovered to date = 68,709
Total deaths to date = 3,226

Scaremongering seems to be a popular pastime these days but the facts do not back up ridiculous claims.

The death rates I quoted come from those figures, which I note you quote here then go on to say are unreliable in a later post.

I'm only saying it's sensible for people in the most at risk group to try to minimise their potential exposure to the disease, particularly while we still know so little about it. One of the things we do know, borne out by all the statistics in all the countries afflicted is that it predominantly kills older people and I don't see why pointing that out and suggesting a tailored response to that is wrong.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Duggimon:
RLI
By lionofludesch
17th Mar 2020 12:50

Duggimon wrote:

10% of over 70s who contract COVID-19 die. 15% of over 80s who contract COVID-19 die. Up to 80% of the population are expected to contract the virus.

While the idea of a four month lockdown is unsustainable, it's only sensible for those most at risk to at least be aware and minimise their contact with the grubby unwashed masses while this is going on, in order to not die.

Of course, the figures mean 9/10 of over 70s who are unlucky enough to get it will survive it, but 9/10 isn't that high a proportion when we're talking life or death.

87.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.

We know nothing about this virus.

Thanks (0)
Share this content

Related posts