You are completely obsessed with this utter clown.
STOP RETWEETING HIM
Agree - especially as the tweet is from March 2020. What's the point?
The point is that he has been proved to be comprehensively wrong. I for one hadn't seen that moronic tweet before so I am glad to have that information about what a moron that particular EU apologist is.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
Hate it. Its one saving grace is to make clear that if you switch to 'Regards' it means you're really pissed off...
'Thanks,' is the ultimate furious sign off.
Not really, "regards" or "sincerely" are much worse. Thanks can work fine depending on the context.
I've always used "Thanks" but now I wonder who I've offended with that. What should I use instead?
Yours in anticipation.
Lol, "thanks" really does depend on the context and who it is you're emailing. A good catch all is "kind regards", it's inoffensive and good for all seasons.
I always user "kind regards" too - but now I'm worried because Ydoethur doesn't like it and I don't want to upset the teacher.
Just add "sir" on the end, that should keep him happy.
Well, actually, I’m even more confused now because when I get emails from students they normally finish with ‘thanks, sir’ and apparently that’s in some way cutting.
I always thought it was them showing good manners.
Oh come on, you must know full well that a student's "sir" (both written and spoken) can range from the nerdily respectful to the deeply sarcastic, depending on whether it's the boffin in 5A or the n'er do well in 5D (he stereoptyped).
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
It’s thankfully now straightforward. You vaccinate the parents. Which we will have done nationwide very soon, certainly far earlier than the current timetable for lifting restrictions.
The issue with that being that the vaccine is not 100% reliable. So there is still a significant risk.
Of course there will always be some risk but that reduces once everyone has been jabbed. Until then it is as wise to try and act as if you could potentially be a carrier and kill your parents.
Until there is a 100% reliable vaccine, this will be true. The human race should therefore be in lockdown forever.
No not at all. It is a balance of risks. I just consider that, until you have been vaccinated, which reduces the chances of you catching and passing on the virus, it is probably daft to take the additional risk of behaving normally and thereby potentially killing your granny.
Obviously it will never be risk free and nothing in life is. But if the risk of passing on the disease to your loved ones is 10% before you get jabbed and 1% afterwards then I don't think personally I would begrudge the additional couple of weeks I spend in lockdown to reduce that risk.
Of course there are a small number of people who are just too stupid or selfish to consider this. And if they do end up killing granny they will be the first to blame everyone but themselves.
There are a couple of people posting on here who I fear fall into that category.
There is a total unreality to this thread. I’ll spell it out for you.
It began with peer reviewed confirmation of the excellent news that the vaccine appears to have 100% (one hundred percent) efficacy against hospitalisation and death after 22 (twenty two) days from dose 1 (one).
The acceleration of the vaccine programme down the age curve speaks for itself. Just read any newspaper today for how quickly things will move on the next few weeks.
And yet most of the posters seem to be utterly scared of their own shadows. Talking about too much risk. What risk are you afraid of after most anyone likely to have needed a hospital from this disease has been vaccinated with a 100% (one hundred percent) efficacious vaccine, as measured by risk of hospitalisation?
You’re all supposed to have an above average understanding of risk and reward. I despair.
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
What an utterly selfish and frankly contemptible attitude.
We've locked down to protect you and your health. We given you vaccines. Enormous sacrifices have been made by people whose lives are not affected to keep you safe/
Seriously, what more do you expect? what more do you want? how much life do you think you are owed? How much more sacrifice is to be made to protect you, you self entitled, pompous ungrateful sh*t?
I want people and the NHS to be protected from a deadly virus that is still not under control
I suspect that most people are the same
And your comments are rather personal and indeed unpleasant but then so be it
I'm not taking sides in this spat, but, out of interest, how would you define under control?
When the majority of the population are vaccinated
Majority of the adult population or total population?
First doses or both doses?
Adult population and it does seem first doses would open the door, but I am not an expert
Well the research is in the public domain. This is an intelligent site, if you have a view you should define that view.
(As it happens I agree with you – 50% adult first doses seems to me to be a key milestone)
At a guess, I'd say that the median age of the adult population is 50, or somewhere not very far short of it - so we're not very far away from that already.
Anyway, I think by the time we get to the biggest phase of unlocking (indoor hospitality and most visitor accommodation, scheduled for May 17th) we ought hopefully to have got everyone over 40, except the anti-vaxxers and a very small number of people who can't have it, through one dose plus three weeks, and cohorts 1-4 should've had their seconds by then as well.
My hope and expectation at that point is that opening back up should not cause a marked increase in hospitalisations, that the final stage proceeds on schedule on June 21st, and that the pandemic in the UK is then declared over. No more news conferences, no more Covid dashboard, no more social distancing, get on with the process of recovery.
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
What an utterly selfish and frankly contemptible attitude.
We've locked down to protect you and your health. We given you vaccines. Enormous sacrifices have been made by people whose lives are not affected to keep you safe/
Seriously, what more do you expect? what more do you want? how much life do you think you are owed? How much more sacrifice is to be made to protect you, you self entitled, pompous ungrateful sh*t?
I want people and the NHS to be protected from a deadly virus that is still not under control
I suspect that most people are the same
And your comments are rather personal and indeed unpleasant but then so be it
I can only admire your restraint in that post, Big G. When Topping went off on one in an equally unpleasant and dishonest fashion aimed at me I must confess I lost my temper, and I don’t think anyone would have blamed you for doing the same.
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
What an utterly selfish and frankly contemptible attitude.
We've locked down to protect you and your health. We given you vaccines. Enormous sacrifices have been made by people whose lives are not affected to keep you safe/
Seriously, what more do you expect? what more do you want? how much life do you think you are owed? How much more sacrifice is to be made to protect you, you self entitled, pompous ungrateful sh*t?
I want people and the NHS to be protected from a deadly virus that is still not under control
I suspect that most people are the same
And your comments are rather personal and indeed unpleasant but then so be it
I'm not taking sides in this spat, but, out of interest, how would you define under control?
When the majority of the population are vaccinated
I see, so people would are not affected by covid at all have to take vaccines before you will let them have their freedom and enjoy their youth again?
In addition to the vast mountain of debt, lost education, lowering of life chances, mental health issues and reduced job opportunities that keeping you safe has entailed?
We just do not agree on this nor is personalising it helping your argument
I'm sorry but this is personal because it affects everybody personally. You do not care or count at anything the sacrifices people have made on you behalf, even though in same cases they are very large and the young people concerned will bear the scars for life
Sacrifices you never made when you were young. Nobody had you on furlough or lockdown eh?
Now the general population must give up all kinds of freedoms and futures just so that you don't get a little bit nervous.
I stand my all my posts.
I cowered under a steel table as V bombs flew overhead (lockdown) in1944 and one crashed nearby killing 6 neighbours
Your idea sacrifices were not made when I was young when we were at war and the austere years following are just wrong
And of course I am grateful we have been vaccinated, but even more so that my 60 year old son in law has as well as my 46 year old son have received their first vaccines
I am delighted for each and everyone who receives a vaccine and look forward to the majority of adults receiving it by the summer
You have a very strange attitude to these matters
It's quite something. He refuses to get vaccinated, too.
I think @contrarian said that he wanted to get vaccinated of his own choosing not by state dictate. But I don't feel pressured by the state to get a vaccine at all, and of course it isn't mandatory, so I don't really understand this view.
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
What an utterly selfish and frankly contemptible attitude.
We've locked down to protect you and your health. We given you vaccines. Enormous sacrifices have been made by people whose lives are not affected to keep you safe/
Seriously, what more do you expect? what more do you want? how much life do you think you are owed? How much more sacrifice is to be made to protect you, you self entitled, pompous ungrateful sh*t?
I want people and the NHS to be protected from a deadly virus that is still not under control
I suspect that most people are the same
And your comments are rather personal and indeed unpleasant but then so be it
I'm not taking sides in this spat, but, out of interest, how would you define under control?
When the majority of the population are vaccinated
I see, so people would are not affected by covid at all have to take vaccines before you will let them have their freedom and enjoy their youth again?
In addition to the vast mountain of debt, lost education, lowering of life chances, mental health issues and reduced job opportunities that keeping you safe has entailed?
We just do not agree on this nor is personalising it helping your argument
I'm sorry but this is personal because it affects everybody personally. You do not care or count at anything the sacrifices people have made on you behalf, even though in same cases they are very large and the young people concerned will bear the scars for life
Sacrifices you never made when you were young. Nobody had you on furlough or lockdown eh?
Now the general population must give up all kinds of freedoms and futures just so that you don't get a little bit nervous.
I stand my all my posts.
I cowered under a steel table as V bombs flew overhead (lockdown) in1944 and one crashed nearby killing 6 neighbours
Your idea sacrifices were not made when I was young when we were at war and the austere years following are just wrong
And of course I am grateful we have been vaccinated, but even more so that my 60 year old son in law has as well as my 46 year old son have received their first vaccines
I am delighted for each and everyone who receives a vaccine and look forward to the majority of adults receiving it by the summer
You have a very strange attitude to these matters
Big_G, he's a troll. Don't let him get to you, and don't bother to reply to his rants.
I have regular contact with young people through my job, and the ones I know resent not at all the lockdowns that kept (some of) their parents and grandparents safe.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Around 100,000 'boomers' died of Covid, though, and many others got seriously ill. Luckily Big G wasn't one of them. I guess the sacrifices of the old don't count to you, because their useful life was pretty much over anyway.
You arguments manage to be both crap and repulsive.
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
What an utterly selfish and frankly contemptible attitude.
We've locked down to protect you and your health. We given you vaccines. Enormous sacrifices have been made by people whose lives are not affected to keep you safe/
Seriously, what more do you expect? what more do you want? how much life do you think you are owed? How much more sacrifice is to be made to protect you, you self entitled, pompous ungrateful sh*t?
I want people and the NHS to be protected from a deadly virus that is still not under control
I suspect that most people are the same
And your comments are rather personal and indeed unpleasant but then so be it
I'm not taking sides in this spat, but, out of interest, how would you define under control?
When the majority of the population are vaccinated
Majority of the adult population or total population?
First doses or both doses?
Adult population and it does seem first doses would open the door, but I am not an expert
Well the research is in the public domain. This is an intelligent site, if you have a view you should define that view.
(As it happens I agree with you – 50% adult first doses seems to me to be a key milestone)
At a guess, I'd say that the median age of the adult population is 50, or somewhere not very far short of it - so we're not very far away from that already.
Anyway, I think by the time we get to the biggest phase of unlocking (indoor hospitality and most visitor accommodation, scheduled for May 17th) we ought hopefully to have got everyone over 40, except the anti-vaxxers and a very small number of people who can't have it, through one dose plus three weeks, and cohorts 1-4 should've had their seconds by then as well.
My hope and expectation at that point is that opening back up should not cause a marked increase in hospitalisations, that the final stage proceeds on schedule on June 21st, and that the pandemic in the UK is then declared over. No more news conferences, no more Covid dashboard, no more social distancing, get on with the process of recovery.
At the considerable risk of being pedantic I think the pandemic would still apply but the epidemic in the UK would be over.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Around 100,000 'boomers' died of Covid, though, and many others got seriously ill. Luckily Big G wasn't one of them. I guess the sacrifices of the old don't count to you, because their useful life was pretty much over anyway.
You arguments manage to be both crap and repulsive.
And wrong, of course. Gideon Wise and many others could point out this disease *does* affect the rest of us - frequently badly.
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
What an utterly selfish and frankly contemptible attitude.
We've locked down to protect you and your health. We given you vaccines. Enormous sacrifices have been made by people whose lives are not affected to keep you safe/
Seriously, what more do you expect? what more do you want? how much life do you think you are owed? How much more sacrifice is to be made to protect you, you self entitled, pompous ungrateful sh*t?
I want people and the NHS to be protected from a deadly virus that is still not under control
I suspect that most people are the same
And your comments are rather personal and indeed unpleasant but then so be it
I'm not taking sides in this spat, but, out of interest, how would you define under control?
When the majority of the population are vaccinated
I see, so people would are not affected by covid at all have to take vaccines before you will let them have their freedom and enjoy their youth again?
In addition to the vast mountain of debt, lost education, lowering of life chances, mental health issues and reduced job opportunities that keeping you safe has entailed?
We just do not agree on this nor is personalising it helping your argument
I'm sorry but this is personal because it affects everybody personally. You do not care or count at anything the sacrifices people have made on you behalf, even though in same cases they are very large and the young people concerned will bear the scars for life
Sacrifices you never made when you were young. Nobody had you on furlough or lockdown eh?
Now the general population must give up all kinds of freedoms and futures just so that you don't get a little bit nervous.
I stand my all my posts.
I cowered under a steel table as V bombs flew overhead (lockdown) in1944 and one crashed nearby killing 6 neighbours
Your idea sacrifices were not made when I was young when we were at war and the austere years following are just wrong
And of course I am grateful we have been vaccinated, but even more so that my 60 year old son in law has as well as my 46 year old son have received their first vaccines
I am delighted for each and everyone who receives a vaccine and look forward to the majority of adults receiving it by the summer
You have a very strange attitude to these matters
It's quite something. He refuses to get vaccinated, too.
I think @contrarian said that he wanted to get vaccinated of his own choosing not by state dictate. But I don't feel pressured by the state to get a vaccine at all, and of course it isn't mandatory, so I don't really understand this view.
Most of my friends are celebrating their vaccine dates and competing to book on the NHS website as soon as they can. But then we're all middle-aged or older, some have medical problems, and we're all desperate to get down the pub again
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Boomers joined the army, they fought and died in wars, they worked for low pay, built careers, took on burdens just as onerous than anything your generation is having to deal with, did it all under the shadow of possible nuclear armageddon and had neither the inclination nor the opportunity to spend their days whining about it to the rest of the world.
Your are a spoilt brat who expects everything handed to you on a plate. Like I said you should grow up and realise the world owes you absolutely nothing. Just like the rest of us.
“we are (not in any way) banning the words 'mother' or 'father'."
Advising Staff against using the words is just as daft
I know this is the Generation Gap thing, but why?
Using "Parents and Guardians" instead of "Mothers and Father's" doesn't cost anyone anything, and is a little bit kinder to the small number of people who are included by one but excluded by the other.
Nothing is being enforced or banned, but it's just good manners.
Parent and Guardian does not mean the same as Mother and Father.
Indeed, it might be shockingly contentious to say this but absolutely every human alive has a biological mother and father.
But consider who a University might be writing to. The main contexts I can think of are "the adults we should contact when a student has a medical or personal crisis" or "the adults invited to graduation". In those contexts, P+G is more inclusive and accurate than M+F, because it allows for the possibility that a student isn't with their biological parents any more. Which is why schools have used this language for decades.
Now it's possible that there's some secret campaign by the University of Manchester to destroy the nuclear family. The alternative is that the Daily Mail and Toby Young have decided to make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
I know which one I would bet on.
This is a style guide which University employees themselves requested.
Did all the anti-woke snowflakes get so would up back in the day when they were instructed on when to use yours sincerely or yours faithfully in correspondence ?
Incidentally, am I the only person who hates the common ‘kind regards’ sign off on emails?
Hate it. Its one saving grace is to make clear that if you switch to 'Regards' it means you're really pissed off...
'Thanks,' is the ultimate furious sign off.
Not really, "regards" or "sincerely" are much worse. Thanks can work fine depending on the context.
I've always used "Thanks" but now I wonder who I've offended with that. What should I use instead?
Yours in anticipation.
Lol, "thanks" really does depend on the context and who it is you're emailing. A good catch all is "kind regards", it's inoffensive and good for all seasons.
I always user "kind regards" too - but now I'm worried because Ydoethur doesn't like it and I don't want to upset the teacher.
Just add "sir" on the end, that should keep him happy.
Well, actually, I’m even more confused now because when I get emails from students they normally finish with ‘thanks, sir’ and apparently that’s in some way cutting.
I always thought it was them showing good manners.
Oh come on, you must know full well that a student's "sir" (both written and spoken) can range from the nerdily respectful to the deeply sarcastic, depending on whether it's the boffin in 5A or the n'er do well in 5D (he stereoptyped).
Or worst of all, the n'er do well who is still clever enough to be in 5A.
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
What an utterly selfish and frankly contemptible attitude.
We've locked down to protect you and your health. We given you vaccines. Enormous sacrifices have been made by people whose lives are not affected to keep you safe/
Seriously, what more do you expect? what more do you want? how much life do you think you are owed? How much more sacrifice is to be made to protect you, you self entitled, pompous ungrateful sh*t?
I want people and the NHS to be protected from a deadly virus that is still not under control
I suspect that most people are the same
And your comments are rather personal and indeed unpleasant but then so be it
I'm not taking sides in this spat, but, out of interest, how would you define under control?
When the majority of the population are vaccinated
Majority of the adult population or total population?
First doses or both doses?
Adult population and it does seem first doses would open the door, but I am not an expert
Well the research is in the public domain. This is an intelligent site, if you have a view you should define that view.
(As it happens I agree with you – 50% adult first doses seems to me to be a key milestone)
At a guess, I'd say that the median age of the adult population is 50, or somewhere not very far short of it - so we're not very far away from that already.
Anyway, I think by the time we get to the biggest phase of unlocking (indoor hospitality and most visitor accommodation, scheduled for May 17th) we ought hopefully to have got everyone over 40, except the anti-vaxxers and a very small number of people who can't have it, through one dose plus three weeks, and cohorts 1-4 should've had their seconds by then as well.
My hope and expectation at that point is that opening back up should not cause a marked increase in hospitalisations, that the final stage proceeds on schedule on June 21st, and that the pandemic in the UK is then declared over. No more news conferences, no more Covid dashboard, no more social distancing, get on with the process of recovery.
At the considerable risk of being pedantic I think the pandemic would still apply but the epidemic in the UK would be over.
Being pedantic is an opportunity not a risk on this site!
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
It’s thankfully now straightforward. You vaccinate the parents. Which we will have done nationwide very soon, certainly far earlier than the current timetable for lifting restrictions.
The issue with that being that the vaccine is not 100% reliable. So there is still a significant risk.
Of course there will always be some risk but that reduces once everyone has been jabbed. Until then it is as wise to try and act as if you could potentially be a carrier and kill your parents.
Until there is a 100% reliable vaccine, this will be true. The human race should therefore be in lockdown forever.
No not at all. It is a balance of risks. I just consider that, until you have been vaccinated, which reduces the chances of you catching and passing on the virus, it is probably daft to take the additional risk of behaving normally and thereby potentially killing your granny.
Obviously it will never be risk free and nothing in life is. But if the risk of passing on the disease to your loved ones is 10% before you get jabbed and 1% afterwards then I don't think personally I would begrudge the additional couple of weeks I spend in lockdown to reduce that risk.
Of course there are a small number of people who are just too stupid or selfish to consider this. And if they do end up killing granny they will be the first to blame everyone but themselves.
There are a couple of people posting on here who I fear fall into that category.
There is a total unreality to this thread. I’ll spell it out for you.
It began with peer reviewed confirmation of the excellent news that the vaccine appears to have 100% (one hundred percent) efficacy against hospitalisation and death after 22 (twenty two) days from dose 1 (one).
The acceleration of the vaccine programme down the age curve speaks for itself. Just read any newspaper today for how quickly things will move on the next few weeks.
And yet most of the posters seem to be utterly scared of their own shadows. Talking about too much risk. What risk are you afraid of after most anyone likely to have needed a hospital from this disease has been vaccinated with a 100% (one hundred percent) efficacious vaccine, as measured by risk of hospitalisation?
You’re all supposed to have an above average understanding of risk and reward. I despair.
If you think that the vaccine is 100% (one hundred percent) effective against hospitalization, you need to re-read the literature. For one thing it's medically impossible. 15 (fifteen) cases in the placebo group versus none (zero) in the vaccine group only indicates that effectiveness is at least about 80% (eighty percent) effective, pending more data. It's likely to be over 90% (ninety percent), but the chances of it being 100% (one hundred percent) is 0% (zero percent).
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
What an utterly selfish and frankly contemptible attitude.
We've locked down to protect you and your health. We given you vaccines. Enormous sacrifices have been made by people whose lives are not affected to keep you safe/
Seriously, what more do you expect? what more do you want? how much life do you think you are owed? How much more sacrifice is to be made to protect you, you self entitled, pompous ungrateful sh*t?
I want people and the NHS to be protected from a deadly virus that is still not under control
I suspect that most people are the same
And your comments are rather personal and indeed unpleasant but then so be it
I'm not taking sides in this spat, but, out of interest, how would you define under control?
When the majority of the population are vaccinated
I see, so people would are not affected by covid at all have to take vaccines before you will let them have their freedom and enjoy their youth again?
In addition to the vast mountain of debt, lost education, lowering of life chances, mental health issues and reduced job opportunities that keeping you safe has entailed?
We just do not agree on this nor is personalising it helping your argument
I'm sorry but this is personal because it affects everybody personally. You do not care or count at anything the sacrifices people have made on you behalf, even though in same cases they are very large and the young people concerned will bear the scars for life
Sacrifices you never made when you were young. Nobody had you on furlough or lockdown eh?
Now the general population must give up all kinds of freedoms and futures just so that you don't get a little bit nervous.
I stand my all my posts.
I cowered under a steel table as V bombs flew overhead (lockdown) in1944 and one crashed nearby killing 6 neighbours
Your idea sacrifices were not made when I was young when we were at war and the austere years following are just wrong
And of course I am grateful we have been vaccinated, but even more so that my 60 year old son in law has as well as my 46 year old son have received their first vaccines
I am delighted for each and everyone who receives a vaccine and look forward to the majority of adults receiving it by the summer
You have a very strange attitude to these matters
Big_G, he's a troll. Don't let him get to you, and don't bother to reply to his rants.
I have regular contact with young people through my job, and the ones I know resent not at all the lockdowns that kept (some of) their parents and grandparents safe.
--AS
How nice for you. Because the ones I know have either strongly contemplated or attempted suicide over this.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
It’s thankfully now straightforward. You vaccinate the parents. Which we will have done nationwide very soon, certainly far earlier than the current timetable for lifting restrictions.
The issue with that being that the vaccine is not 100% reliable. So there is still a significant risk.
Of course there will always be some risk but that reduces once everyone has been jabbed. Until then it is as wise to try and act as if you could potentially be a carrier and kill your parents.
Until there is a 100% reliable vaccine, this will be true. The human race should therefore be in lockdown forever.
No not at all. It is a balance of risks. I just consider that, until you have been vaccinated, which reduces the chances of you catching and passing on the virus, it is probably daft to take the additional risk of behaving normally and thereby potentially killing your granny.
Obviously it will never be risk free and nothing in life is. But if the risk of passing on the disease to your loved ones is 10% before you get jabbed and 1% afterwards then I don't think personally I would begrudge the additional couple of weeks I spend in lockdown to reduce that risk.
Of course there are a small number of people who are just too stupid or selfish to consider this. And if they do end up killing granny they will be the first to blame everyone but themselves.
There are a couple of people posting on here who I fear fall into that category.
There is a total unreality to this thread. I’ll spell it out for you.
It began with peer reviewed confirmation of the excellent news that the vaccine appears to have 100% (one hundred percent) efficacy against hospitalisation and death after 22 (twenty two) days from dose 1 (one).
The acceleration of the vaccine programme down the age curve speaks for itself. Just read any newspaper today for how quickly things will move on the next few weeks.
And yet most of the posters seem to be utterly scared of their own shadows. Talking about too much risk. What risk are you afraid of after most anyone likely to have needed a hospital from this disease has been vaccinated with a 100% (one hundred percent) efficacious vaccine, as measured by risk of hospitalisation?
You’re all supposed to have an above average understanding of risk and reward. I despair.
Not only are they scared of their own shadows, they are completely insensitive to and ignorant of what people who were never in danger from covid have gone through in the past year, and what they face in the future. They think what has been provided for them is victimless.
Well here's the unvarnished truth people. It is far, far from victimless ,and so we are perfectly entitled to ask what more is required and for how much longer.
A shattered education. A mental health epidemic. A broken economy. A lost youth. A mountain of debt. A bleak job outlook.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Boomers joined the army, they fought and died in wars, they worked for low pay, built careers, took on burdens just as onerous than anything your generation is having to deal with, did it all under the shadow of possible nuclear armageddon and had neither the inclination nor the opportunity to spend their days whining about it to the rest of the world.
Your are a spoilt brat who expects everything handed to you on a plate. Like I said you should grow up and realise the world owes you absolutely nothing. Just like the rest of us.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Around 100,000 'boomers' died of Covid, though, and many others got seriously ill. Luckily Big G wasn't one of them. I guess the sacrifices of the old don't count to you, because their useful life was pretty much over anyway.
You arguments manage to be both crap and repulsive.
And wrong, of course. Gideon Wise and many others could point out this disease *does* affect the rest of us - frequently badly.
Very rarely in younger groups unless they have an underlying health condition. Yes, there are examples of it affecting the young and healthy badly, but it’s rare. Frequently is stretching a point.
< There is a total unreality to this thread. I’ll spell it out for you.
It began with peer reviewed confirmation of the excellent news that the vaccine appears to have 100% (one hundred percent) efficacy against hospitalisation and death after 22 (twenty two) days from dose 1 (one).
The acceleration of the vaccine programme down the age curve speaks for itself. Just read any newspaper today for how quickly things will move on the next few weeks.
And yet most of the posters seem to be utterly scared of their own shadows. Talking about too much risk. What risk are you afraid of after most anyone likely to have needed a hospital from this disease has been vaccinated with a 100% (one hundred percent) efficacious vaccine, as measured by risk of hospitalisation?
You’re all supposed to have an above average understanding of risk and reward. I despair.
Ignoring the crass generalisations and hyperbole, no one is calling for 100% immunity. I'm well aware anything in the high 80s and above is fantastic and will be more than enough and it's clear that, three weeks from the first dose and certainly seven days after the second (which serves to prolong not enhance the immunity).
As I got vaccinated, by your argument, I should be, to quote The Beatles "free as a bird" by Good Friday yet I won't have a pub to go to or a shop to get my haircut and so on.
Quite - the more we get vaccinated the more, once the initial three weeks has passed, we can head to the new normal. I'm comfortable with the roadmap as it marks a clear path for that journey.
By June 21st a large number of the adult population will have had both doses of vaccine and the "risk", about which you seem or consider yourself be to an expert, will be much reduced.
One more thing - it's my life, I could well be in a position where, if I contracted the virus, I could be at risk of hospitalisation, so I'll be as risk averse as I want and given the demographic profile of the UK currently, that's an attitude that is going to be prevalent.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
It’s thankfully now straightforward. You vaccinate the parents. Which we will have done nationwide very soon, certainly far earlier than the current timetable for lifting restrictions.
The issue with that being that the vaccine is not 100% reliable. So there is still a significant risk.
Of course there will always be some risk but that reduces once everyone has been jabbed. Until then it is as wise to try and act as if you could potentially be a carrier and kill your parents.
Until there is a 100% reliable vaccine, this will be true. The human race should therefore be in lockdown forever.
No not at all. It is a balance of risks. I just consider that, until you have been vaccinated, which reduces the chances of you catching and passing on the virus, it is probably daft to take the additional risk of behaving normally and thereby potentially killing your granny.
Obviously it will never be risk free and nothing in life is. But if the risk of passing on the disease to your loved ones is 10% before you get jabbed and 1% afterwards then I don't think personally I would begrudge the additional couple of weeks I spend in lockdown to reduce that risk.
Of course there are a small number of people who are just too stupid or selfish to consider this. And if they do end up killing granny they will be the first to blame everyone but themselves.
There are a couple of people posting on here who I fear fall into that category.
There is a total unreality to this thread. I’ll spell it out for you.
It began with peer reviewed confirmation of the excellent news that the vaccine appears to have 100% (one hundred percent) efficacy against hospitalisation and death after 22 (twenty two) days from dose 1 (one).
The acceleration of the vaccine programme down the age curve speaks for itself. Just read any newspaper today for how quickly things will move on the next few weeks.
And yet most of the posters seem to be utterly scared of their own shadows. Talking about too much risk. What risk are you afraid of after most anyone likely to have needed a hospital from this disease has been vaccinated with a 100% (one hundred percent) efficacious vaccine, as measured by risk of hospitalisation?
You’re all supposed to have an above average understanding of risk and reward. I despair.
As I pointed out if you believe it is 100% then I am afraid you really are just a bit deluded.
And it comes down to different values. We have one chance at life and after that it is gone. For good. We are returned to the dust from whence we came. As such, the idea that I have to spend another couple of weeks making sure I don't kill my mother because I was too impatient to buy a coffee or go to the pub really isn't a hard choice for me.
It is not about fear, it is about responsibility. To my family and to my fellow man.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
It’s thankfully now straightforward. You vaccinate the parents. Which we will have done nationwide very soon, certainly far earlier than the current timetable for lifting restrictions.
The issue with that being that the vaccine is not 100% reliable. So there is still a significant risk.
Of course there will always be some risk but that reduces once everyone has been jabbed. Until then it is as wise to try and act as if you could potentially be a carrier and kill your parents.
Until there is a 100% reliable vaccine, this will be true. The human race should therefore be in lockdown forever.
No not at all. It is a balance of risks. I just consider that, until you have been vaccinated, which reduces the chances of you catching and passing on the virus, it is probably daft to take the additional risk of behaving normally and thereby potentially killing your granny.
Obviously it will never be risk free and nothing in life is. But if the risk of passing on the disease to your loved ones is 10% before you get jabbed and 1% afterwards then I don't think personally I would begrudge the additional couple of weeks I spend in lockdown to reduce that risk.
Of course there are a small number of people who are just too stupid or selfish to consider this. And if they do end up killing granny they will be the first to blame everyone but themselves.
There are a couple of people posting on here who I fear fall into that category.
There is a total unreality to this thread. I’ll spell it out for you.
It began with peer reviewed confirmation of the excellent news that the vaccine appears to have 100% (one hundred percent) efficacy against hospitalisation and death after 22 (twenty two) days from dose 1 (one).
The acceleration of the vaccine programme down the age curve speaks for itself. Just read any newspaper today for how quickly things will move on the next few weeks.
And yet most of the posters seem to be utterly scared of their own shadows. Talking about too much risk. What risk are you afraid of after most anyone likely to have needed a hospital from this disease has been vaccinated with a 100% (one hundred percent) efficacious vaccine, as measured by risk of hospitalisation?
You’re all supposed to have an above average understanding of risk and reward. I despair.
As I pointed out if you believe it is 100% then I am afraid you really are just a bit deluded.
And it comes down to different values. We have one chance at life and after that it is gone. For good. We are returned to the dust from whence we came. As such, the idea that I have to spend another couple of weeks making sure I don't kill my mother because I was too impatient to buy a coffee or go to the pub really isn't a hard choice for me.
It is not about fear, it is about responsibility. To my family and to my fellow man.
We could do with a bit of that attitude Richard sometimes when it comes to your interaction with other PBers let alone your "fellow man".
I'm sorry but this is personal because it affects everybody personally. You do not care or count at anything the sacrifices people have made on you behalf, even though in same cases they are very large and the young people concerned will bear the scars for life
Sacrifices you never made when you were young. Nobody had you on furlough or lockdown eh?
Now the general population must give up all kinds of freedoms and futures just so that you don't get a little bit nervous.
I stand my all my posts.
Three points and then i'll leave you to it.
1. All kinds of things that we care about affect everyone personally. For example, I'm keen on higher tax to fund the NHS and a National Care Service. EVERYONE would be personally affected, positively and negatively. There are people here who disagree. I don't abuse them personally - they've a right to a different view even though it affects us all.
2. You see COVID as binary - threatening older people with death and pretty harmless for everyone else. That's factually incorrect - it's a continuous spectrum, threatening older people more but also serious for many younger people. That's why the majority of people across all age groups want a cautious return to normality.
3. Different generations make different sacrifices. For example, I don't know how old you are, but I'd guess you've not experienced a major war, as BigG has. It's just dumb to rant at individuals who you know very little about. What do you hope to gain from it?
I did have to ask some whopper to give me a little bit more space in the queue for B&Q today. I was the standard 2m back from the people in front. He was basically breathing down my neck.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Boomers joined the army, they fought and died in wars, they worked for low pay, built careers, took on burdens just as onerous than anything your generation is having to deal with, did it all under the shadow of possible nuclear armageddon and had neither the inclination nor the opportunity to spend their days whining about it to the rest of the world.
Your are a spoilt brat who expects everything handed to you on a plate. Like I said you should grow up and realise the world owes you absolutely nothing. Just like the rest of us.
You are completely wrong. I am 59 in April. I am of your generation
My anger comes from dealing with the young people at my place of work. I have seen at first hand some of the tribulations they have gone through in the past year. I've logged off work sometimes thinking 'Jeez' I hope XYZ will be OK.....
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Boomers joined the army, they fought and died in wars, they worked for low pay, built careers, took on burdens just as onerous than anything your generation is having to deal with, did it all under the shadow of possible nuclear armageddon and had neither the inclination nor the opportunity to spend their days whining about it to the rest of the world.
Your are a spoilt brat who expects everything handed to you on a plate. Like I said you should grow up and realise the world owes you absolutely nothing. Just like the rest of us.
Which wars out of interest?
Well off the top of my head the Falklands and the First Gulf war. Of course they also served in Northern Ireland where 360 odd of them were killed.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Boomers joined the army, they fought and died in wars, they worked for low pay, built careers, took on burdens just as onerous than anything your generation is having to deal with, did it all under the shadow of possible nuclear armageddon and had neither the inclination nor the opportunity to spend their days whining about it to the rest of the world.
Your are a spoilt brat who expects everything handed to you on a plate. Like I said you should grow up and realise the world owes you absolutely nothing. Just like the rest of us.
You are completely wrong. I am 59 in April. I am of your generation
My anger comes from dealing with the young people at my place of work. I have seen at first hand some of the tribulations they have gone through in the past year. I've logged off work sometimes thinking 'Jeez' I hope XYZ will be OK.....
In that case you really are a bloody fool and should know better. And yes it still applies. You need to grow up.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Boomers joined the army, they fought and died in wars, they worked for low pay, built careers, took on burdens just as onerous than anything your generation is having to deal with, did it all under the shadow of possible nuclear armageddon and had neither the inclination nor the opportunity to spend their days whining about it to the rest of the world.
Your are a spoilt brat who expects everything handed to you on a plate. Like I said you should grow up and realise the world owes you absolutely nothing. Just like the rest of us.
Which wars out of interest?
Well off the top of my head the Falklands and the First Gulf war. Of course they also served in Northern Ireland where 360 odd of them were killed.
Hmm. Well I suppose so. All volunteers though - you made it sound like WWII.
I have just returned from Asda needing paracetamol for a rather painful tooth extraction last week, and the place was crazy with hordes of people and children, no social distancing, no control by Asda staff, or security either, on the volumes of people in the store or social distancing.
It was just like covid had never happened.
I know it is Mothers day tomorrow and last minute buying of flowers and chocs are understandable, but this was mayhem.
I was grateful that I have had my two Pfizer vaccinations, the second one a week ago, but if the public are unable to show any restraint we will be back in UK lockdown very soon.
What an utterly selfish and frankly contemptible attitude.
We've locked down to protect you and your health. We given you vaccines. Enormous sacrifices have been made by people whose lives are not affected to keep you safe/
Seriously, what more do you expect? what more do you want? how much life do you think you are owed? How much more sacrifice is to be made to protect you, you self entitled, pompous ungrateful sh*t?
I want people and the NHS to be protected from a deadly virus that is still not under control
I suspect that most people are the same
And your comments are rather personal and indeed unpleasant but then so be it
I'm not taking sides in this spat, but, out of interest, how would you define under control?
When the majority of the population are vaccinated
I see, so people would are not affected by covid at all have to take vaccines before you will let them have their freedom and enjoy their youth again?
In addition to the vast mountain of debt, lost education, lowering of life chances, mental health issues and reduced job opportunities that keeping you safe has entailed?
We just do not agree on this nor is personalising it helping your argument
I'm sorry but this is personal because it affects everybody personally. You do not care or count at anything the sacrifices people have made on you behalf, even though in same cases they are very large and the young people concerned will bear the scars for life
Sacrifices you never made when you were young. Nobody had you on furlough or lockdown eh?
Now the general population must give up all kinds of freedoms and futures just so that you don't get a little bit nervous.
I stand my all my posts.
I cowered under a steel table as V bombs flew overhead (lockdown) in1944 and one crashed nearby killing 6 neighbours
Your idea sacrifices were not made when I was young when we were at war and the austere years following are just wrong
And of course I am grateful we have been vaccinated, but even more so that my 60 year old son in law has as well as my 46 year old son have received their first vaccines
I am delighted for each and everyone who receives a vaccine and look forward to the majority of adults receiving it by the summer
You have a very strange attitude to these matters
Big_G, he's a troll. Don't let him get to you, and don't bother to reply to his rants.
I have regular contact with young people through my job, and the ones I know resent not at all the lockdowns that kept (some of) their parents and grandparents safe.
--AS
How nice for you. Because the ones I know have either strongly contemplated or attempted suicide over this.
I know one at least one young worker that has had to have extended therapy for mental issues during lockdown. She still bears the scars and I think always will.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
It’s thankfully now straightforward. You vaccinate the parents. Which we will have done nationwide very soon, certainly far earlier than the current timetable for lifting restrictions.
The issue with that being that the vaccine is not 100% reliable. So there is still a significant risk.
Of course there will always be some risk but that reduces once everyone has been jabbed. Until then it is as wise to try and act as if you could potentially be a carrier and kill your parents.
Until there is a 100% reliable vaccine, this will be true. The human race should therefore be in lockdown forever.
No not at all. It is a balance of risks. I just consider that, until you have been vaccinated, which reduces the chances of you catching and passing on the virus, it is probably daft to take the additional risk of behaving normally and thereby potentially killing your granny.
Obviously it will never be risk free and nothing in life is. But if the risk of passing on the disease to your loved ones is 10% before you get jabbed and 1% afterwards then I don't think personally I would begrudge the additional couple of weeks I spend in lockdown to reduce that risk.
Of course there are a small number of people who are just too stupid or selfish to consider this. And if they do end up killing granny they will be the first to blame everyone but themselves.
There are a couple of people posting on here who I fear fall into that category.
There is a total unreality to this thread. I’ll spell it out for you.
It began with peer reviewed confirmation of the excellent news that the vaccine appears to have 100% (one hundred percent) efficacy against hospitalisation and death after 22 (twenty two) days from dose 1 (one).
The acceleration of the vaccine programme down the age curve speaks for itself. Just read any newspaper today for how quickly things will move on the next few weeks.
And yet most of the posters seem to be utterly scared of their own shadows. Talking about too much risk. What risk are you afraid of after most anyone likely to have needed a hospital from this disease has been vaccinated with a 100% (one hundred percent) efficacious vaccine, as measured by risk of hospitalisation?
You’re all supposed to have an above average understanding of risk and reward. I despair.
As I pointed out if you believe it is 100% then I am afraid you really are just a bit deluded.
And it comes down to different values. We have one chance at life and after that it is gone. For good. We are returned to the dust from whence we came. As such, the idea that I have to spend another couple of weeks making sure I don't kill my mother because I was too impatient to buy a coffee or go to the pub really isn't a hard choice for me.
It is not about fear, it is about responsibility. To my family and to my fellow man.
We could do with a bit of that attitude Richard sometimes when it comes to your interaction with other PBers let alone your "fellow man".
I was talking about responsibility not courtesy. Some people simply don't deserve courtesy, as you demonstrate on a regular basis.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Around 100,000 'boomers' died of Covid, though, and many others got seriously ill. Luckily Big G wasn't one of them. I guess the sacrifices of the old don't count to you, because their useful life was pretty much over anyway.
You arguments manage to be both crap and repulsive.
And wrong, of course. Gideon Wise and many others could point out this disease *does* affect the rest of us - frequently badly.
Very rarely in younger groups unless they have an underlying health condition. Yes, there are examples of it affecting the young and healthy badly, but it’s rare. Frequently is stretching a point.
I’m not sure I agree. But it depends on what you mean by ‘badly.’ When it is symptomatic it frequently seems far worse than flu, and certainly it’s more infectious. But that’s different from the older age groups, where it isn’t so much ‘bad’ as lethal.
I agree that if it only infected people in the way that it affects people of our generation (I think you’re slightly older than me but of a comparable generation) it probably wouldn’t be a major public health emergency, but it’s completely ridiculous and frankly dishonest to say it ‘doesn’t affect them.’
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
It’s thankfully now straightforward. You vaccinate the parents. Which we will have done nationwide very soon, certainly far earlier than the current timetable for lifting restrictions.
The issue with that being that the vaccine is not 100% reliable. So there is still a significant risk.
Of course there will always be some risk but that reduces once everyone has been jabbed. Until then it is as wise to try and act as if you could potentially be a carrier and kill your parents.
Until there is a 100% reliable vaccine, this will be true. The human race should therefore be in lockdown forever.
No not at all. It is a balance of risks. I just consider that, until you have been vaccinated, which reduces the chances of you catching and passing on the virus, it is probably daft to take the additional risk of behaving normally and thereby potentially killing your granny.
Obviously it will never be risk free and nothing in life is. But if the risk of passing on the disease to your loved ones is 10% before you get jabbed and 1% afterwards then I don't think personally I would begrudge the additional couple of weeks I spend in lockdown to reduce that risk.
Of course there are a small number of people who are just too stupid or selfish to consider this. And if they do end up killing granny they will be the first to blame everyone but themselves.
There are a couple of people posting on here who I fear fall into that category.
There is a total unreality to this thread. I’ll spell it out for you.
It began with peer reviewed confirmation of the excellent news that the vaccine appears to have 100% (one hundred percent) efficacy against hospitalisation and death after 22 (twenty two) days from dose 1 (one).
The acceleration of the vaccine programme down the age curve speaks for itself. Just read any newspaper today for how quickly things will move on the next few weeks.
And yet most of the posters seem to be utterly scared of their own shadows. Talking about too much risk. What risk are you afraid of after most anyone likely to have needed a hospital from this disease has been vaccinated with a 100% (one hundred percent) efficacious vaccine, as measured by risk of hospitalisation?
You’re all supposed to have an above average understanding of risk and reward. I despair.
As I pointed out if you believe it is 100% then I am afraid you really are just a bit deluded.
And it comes down to different values. We have one chance at life and after that it is gone. For good. We are returned to the dust from whence we came. As such, the idea that I have to spend another couple of weeks making sure I don't kill my mother because I was too impatient to buy a coffee or go to the pub really isn't a hard choice for me.
It is not about fear, it is about responsibility. To my family and to my fellow man.
We could do with a bit of that attitude Richard sometimes when it comes to your interaction with other PBers let alone your "fellow man".
I was talking about responsibility not courtesy. Some people simply don't deserve courtesy, as you demonstrate on a regular basis.
I'm sorry but this is personal because it affects everybody personally. You do not care or count at anything the sacrifices people have made on you behalf, even though in same cases they are very large and the young people concerned will bear the scars for life
Sacrifices you never made when you were young. Nobody had you on furlough or lockdown eh?
Now the general population must give up all kinds of freedoms and futures just so that you don't get a little bit nervous.
I stand my all my posts.
Three points and then i'll leave you to it.
1. All kinds of things that we care about affect everyone personally. For example, I'm keen on higher tax to fund the NHS and a National Care Service. EVERYONE would be personally affected, positively and negatively. There are people here who disagree. I don't abuse them personally - they've a right to a different view even though it affects us all.
2. You see COVID as binary - threatening older people with death and pretty harmless for everyone else. That's factually incorrect - it's a continuous spectrum, threatening older people more but also serious for many younger people. That's why the majority of people across all age groups want a cautious return to normality.
3. Different generations make different sacrifices. For example, I don't know how old you are, but I'd guess you've not experienced a major war, as BigG has. It's just dumb to rant at individuals who you know very little about. What do you hope to gain from it?
Covid IS binary in the same way that life is binary. Young people thrive, old people perish, That's nature. The disease is being sold as dangerous to all because those who have instituted lockdowns do not want to face up to the devastating consequences of what they have done. They want to think its all good.
I did have to ask some whopper to give me a little bit more space in the queue for B&Q today. I was the standard 2m back from the people in front. He was basically breathing down my neck.
At the minute it’s safest to always buy 2x4 planks at B&Q and use them to keep space.
You asked about a 20 year old socialising, and making their own choices about the risks they are prepared to run.
Let me take a step back. Imagine you build a factory and it belches out noxious and toxic emissions. You might be prepared to work in the factory and run the risk of being affected by those emissions, but the emissions don't stop at the factory gates. Those fumes drift beyond, and they can get other people sick.
We therefore have rules about the emissions factories are allowed to emit.
Your 20 year old, if they have CV19, they might not even notice, or it might be a mild sniffle. They aren't going to be negatively affected (or at least not much), but they are a walking talking negartive externality spewer. And in democratic societies, we have rules that restrict negative externalities.
If it were possible to segment the risk, so that 20 year olds were unable to pass CV19 onto other people, it would be amazing. But the reality is that your 20 year old probably lives at home with their parents, or socialises with people who live with their parents. How do you stop those externalities spreading?
You can't, you never could, and you never will. And in the vast majority of cases, for a parent under 65, the result is so what. Covid is 99% survivable.
In return for being allowed to enjoy their youth young people join armed forces, work for low pay, embark on careers and take on the burdens, obligations and responsibilities the previous generations leave. Without question.
IF we change the social contract on them, as what is the most selfish generation in history undoubtedly has, we shouldn't be surprised if they turn around and change it on us.
What a truly dumb comment. Do you think older people suddenly appear on earth without having being young themselves - and in all likelihood grown up in far poorer circumstances than most people today? Are the old just created by spontaneous generation?
I think, for many and varied reasons, you need to grow up.
Look at the facts.
Boomers were not locked down. They were never placed under house arrest. They were not furloughed. Their educations were not destroyed. They were not ordered to wear masks for hours every day. They were not locked up at university, or cheated out of money in return for substandard lectures the Open university could provide. Their job opportunities were not shattered by fiat. They were not burdened by enormous and crushing debts. Their protests were not stopped by covid laws. They were not told they could not exercise.
All over a disease that does not affect them.
What we have done to our young people is abominable, and still, apparently, it is not enough.
Around 100,000 'boomers' died of Covid, though, and many others got seriously ill. Luckily Big G wasn't one of them. I guess the sacrifices of the old don't count to you, because their useful life was pretty much over anyway.
You arguments manage to be both crap and repulsive.
He seems to be claiming that it would only be fair if they’d been quarantined in their youth for a disease that didn’t yet exist.
It’s about as rational and grounded in reality as most of his other variations on the theme of “I DON’T WANT MY LIFESTYLE TO CHANGE IT’S NOT REAL OR IT’S UNNECESSARY OR SOMETHING”
Put under a po-faced claim of holier-than-thou while swallowing whatever obvious bollocks may possibly be read as supporting his desperate desire for nothing to be done that might spoil his life. No matter how obviously wrong it might be.
Comments
It began with peer reviewed confirmation of the excellent news that the vaccine appears to have 100% (one hundred percent) efficacy against hospitalisation and death after 22 (twenty two) days from dose 1 (one).
The acceleration of the vaccine programme down the age curve speaks for itself. Just read any newspaper today for how quickly things will move on the next few weeks.
And yet most of the posters seem to be utterly scared of their own shadows. Talking about too much risk. What risk are you afraid of after most anyone likely to have needed a hospital from this disease has been vaccinated with a 100% (one hundred percent) efficacious vaccine, as measured by risk of hospitalisation?
You’re all supposed to have an above average understanding of risk and reward. I despair.
Anyway, I think by the time we get to the biggest phase of unlocking (indoor hospitality and most visitor accommodation, scheduled for May 17th) we ought hopefully to have got everyone over 40, except the anti-vaxxers and a very small number of people who can't have it, through one dose plus three weeks, and cohorts 1-4 should've had their seconds by then as well.
My hope and expectation at that point is that opening back up should not cause a marked increase in hospitalisations, that the final stage proceeds on schedule on June 21st, and that the pandemic in the UK is then declared over. No more news conferences, no more Covid dashboard, no more social distancing, get on with the process of recovery.
I have regular contact with young people through my job, and the ones I know resent not at all the lockdowns that kept (some of) their parents and grandparents safe.
--AS
You arguments manage to be both crap and repulsive.
Your are a spoilt brat who expects everything handed to you on a plate. Like I said you should grow up and realise the world owes you absolutely nothing. Just like the rest of us.
Keating Porn is tiresome – and not even useful. Being pedantic is an opportunity not a risk on this site!
--AS
Well here's the unvarnished truth people. It is far, far from victimless ,and so we are perfectly entitled to ask what more is required and for how much longer.
A shattered education. A mental health epidemic. A broken economy. A lost youth. A mountain of debt. A bleak job outlook.
And not just for a year. For decades.
Very rarely in younger groups unless they have an underlying health condition. Yes, there are examples of it affecting the young and healthy badly, but it’s rare. Frequently is stretching a point.
As I got vaccinated, by your argument, I should be, to quote The Beatles "free as a bird" by Good Friday yet I won't have a pub to go to or a shop to get my haircut and so on.
Quite - the more we get vaccinated the more, once the initial three weeks has passed, we can head to the new normal. I'm comfortable with the roadmap as it marks a clear path for that journey.
By June 21st a large number of the adult population will have had both doses of vaccine and the "risk", about which you seem or consider yourself be to an expert, will be much reduced.
One more thing - it's my life, I could well be in a position where, if I contracted the virus, I could be at risk of hospitalisation, so I'll be as risk averse as I want and given the demographic profile of the UK currently, that's an attitude that is going to be prevalent.
And it comes down to different values. We have one chance at life and after that it is gone. For good. We are returned to the dust from whence we came. As such, the idea that I have to spend another couple of weeks making sure I don't kill my mother because I was too impatient to buy a coffee or go to the pub really isn't a hard choice for me.
It is not about fear, it is about responsibility. To my family and to my fellow man.
1. All kinds of things that we care about affect everyone personally. For example, I'm keen on higher tax to fund the NHS and a National Care Service. EVERYONE would be personally affected, positively and negatively. There are people here who disagree. I don't abuse them personally - they've a right to a different view even though it affects us all.
2. You see COVID as binary - threatening older people with death and pretty harmless for everyone else. That's factually incorrect - it's a continuous spectrum, threatening older people more but also serious for many younger people. That's why the majority of people across all age groups want a cautious return to normality.
3. Different generations make different sacrifices. For example, I don't know how old you are, but I'd guess you've not experienced a major war, as BigG has. It's just dumb to rant at individuals who you know very little about. What do you hope to gain from it?
My anger comes from dealing with the young people at my place of work. I have seen at first hand some of the tribulations they have gone through in the past year. I've logged off work sometimes thinking 'Jeez' I hope XYZ will be OK.....
I agree that if it only infected people in the way that it affects people of our generation (I think you’re slightly older than me but of a comparable generation) it probably wouldn’t be a major public health emergency, but it’s completely ridiculous and frankly dishonest to say it ‘doesn’t affect them.’
Sorry it isn;t all good. Much of it is bad.
It’s about as rational and grounded in reality as most of his other variations on the theme of “I DON’T WANT MY LIFESTYLE TO CHANGE IT’S NOT REAL OR IT’S UNNECESSARY OR SOMETHING”
Put under a po-faced claim of holier-than-thou while swallowing whatever obvious bollocks may possibly be read as supporting his desperate desire for nothing to be done that might spoil his life. No matter how obviously wrong it might be.