Is it time to learn to live with the virus?

[fuchsntf]

10 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

In an ideal world, yes, but some people lack the capacity to make what we know as sensible choices. If we are saying we need to protect the vulnerable, I would expect that to include all of them, not excluding people judged for making poor choices. It's the same as treating people for diseases brought on by poor lifestyle choices, we don't refuse to treat smokers for lung cancer, nor alcoholics for liver damage, nor the idiot who stepped out in front of a car because they weren't looking properly, and nor should we imo. A civilised society looks after all within it surely?

....so simple

This post, everybody should read..10..20..100 times, also read between the lines....

Its how we like to think we are,but question how deep does it really develope & hold into our individual lives...

[Captain...]

24 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

 

People have to be responsible for their own actions and choices they make.

So counter point, we have a limited number of "cures" who gets them? 

 

The 90 year old man who has lived a perfectly healthy life or the 30 year old fat bloke with diabetes who has enjoyed his 20s a bit too much?

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

8 minutes ago, Captain... said:

So counter point, we have a limited number of "cures" who gets them? 

 

The 90 year old man who has lived a perfectly healthy life or the 30 year old fat bloke with diabetes who has enjoyed his 20s a bit too much?

The 90 year old man.

 

The 30 year old is extremely  unlikely to die of COVID and should take ownership of his life, eat or drink less and exercise a little more.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Obesity is not inevitable for individuals or for countries, but neither is it easy to avoid or reverse it. The environment we all live in can often make it hard for all of us to consistently make healthy choices these days.

And that is why many of us today are carrying excess weight. Almost 7 out of 10 men, and 6 out of 10 women in England are overweight or living with obesity. Too many children are now obese before they reach school age and more become obese while they are at school – this is a tragedy – and the impact of obesity is even worse in disadvantaged groups and some ethnic minorities.

Obesity matters – it affects our health, our life chances and our self-esteem. It makes the work of the NHS and care services more difficult. It is a pressure on the economy.

Living with obesity increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, many cancers, cardiovascular diseases, liver disease and respiratory diseases, and has other effects for example on joint and back pain and on mental health. Losing weight if you are living with obesity improves health – for example for people with pre-diabetes, losing one kilo reduces risk of diabetes by 16%. Weight loss of 5-10% lowers blood pressure and so reduces risk of heart disease.

Thirty years ago, it was different – something has changed – how has this happened?
 

I pulled this off the NHS website and I’m going off topic slightly so apologies as I have a bee in my bonnet.
 

We really should be looking after ourselves better and this should be a wake up call.

[fuchsntf]

Heres my get out....most intelligent Thing I have read....

 

THE OBESITY PARADOX

Scientists now think that being overweight can protect your health

Around a dozen years ago, researchers noticed that some patients with chronic conditions such as heart disease fared better than others. This should have been encouraging news, perhaps a clue to future treatments. Instead, researchers were baffled. Because the factor that seemed to be protecting these patients was fat: They were all overweight or mildly obese.

 

 

Perfect health is a complete myth. We all exist on a spectrum from the most to least healthy among us, and these designations are affected by a huge range of factors, from genetics, to nutrition, to fitness, to socioeconomics. There is no conclusive proof that simply being overweight means that a person’s health is in trouble.

Perfect health is a complete myth.

Arguably, it’s more important to pay attention to one’s health habits than one’s weight. Do you eat well? Do you exercise regularly? These questions are more important than the number on the scale, which is sometimes nothing more than a distraction. When other factors like nutrition and physical activity have a far more direct effect on health, fixating on weight loss is a bad bet. It’s better to focus on the fundamentals that affect health directly.

 

Fitness fanatics,could be a bigger Stress on our modern society than Covid.

 

 

START ASSESSMENT

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 26 September 2020 by fuchsntf

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

I've said enough for now but.....

 

You're changing your argument to suit your ends. In your earlier post you raised the risk of there being no vaccine and "then this thing will never end". Now you're saying that vulnerable people will only have to wait until there's a vaccine.

 

You're also distorting what I said. I did not complain about waiting until there's a vaccine. I asked how long the vulnerable would have to be protected for - particularly if the vaccine does NOT materialise. You are basically advocating a herd immunity approach, during which the vulnerable should self-isolate. So, how long would herd immunity take without a vaccine? How long would the vulnerable have to self-isolate while Covid raged, increasing from perhaps 6% having had it to 70% or whatever herd immunity requires?

 

Also, again, how about answering Deb's original question?

How would such protection of the vulnerable work in practice? It might just about work in care homes, I suppose, if all the staff lived in and never went home and none of the residents ever had any visitors.....for however many years herd immunity took. But what a personal/psychological cost that would impose! And what about younger people who are vulnerable? Parents with kids at school/uni? People whose partners have to go out to work - perhaps in healthcare? Vulnerable young people sharing houses? You say that it "would make no difference to the vulnerable" if Covid ran riot among the non-vulnerable.......how about the vulnerable people I've just mentioned?

 

There are also people starting to realise that long-Covid can also have a major impact on the "non-vulnerable". Someone on here recently mentioned how it had given their 35-year-old mate a serious heart condition.

Here's someone else (40-ish?) writing about the impact on her sister, who's a similar age, I presume: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/26/i-used-to-be-ms-covid-casual-but-with-a-sick-sister-thats-changed

 

I don't know when there will be a vaccine.  I don't know if there will ever be a vaccine.  I don't know the details of how we protect the vulnerable.  

 

We have several choices but until the vaccine arrives, we don't know which to pick.  But one thing all options have in common is that the vulnerable should self-isolate until we have a herd immunity.  That is what we are doing now, option 1.  The vulnerable are self isolating until we have herd immunity created by vaccine. 

 

Another option, option 2, also being put into practice now, if that if we don't have a vaccine we continue self-isolating until we do.  If the vaccine never arrives, then herd immunity never arrives, and we stay like this forever.  This is what option 1 becomes if there is no vaccine  That is what we appear to be doing now.

 

Obviously IMO we need a third option.  One suggestion is that we try and create herd immunity by letting the healthy take their chances and protecting the vulnerable.  This would be option 3  And IMO again, as option 1 takes longer and longer and becomes the more certain to become option 2, then we need to morph into option 3.  

 

But my overriding point is that all these options have one thing in common.  The vulnerable have to self isolate for their own protection.  I don't see any way round it.  Until we have herd immunity, the vulnerable are vulnerable.  We can assess at what point (sans vaccine) we need to go out and try option 3 - which has to be better than option 4, where we take our chance and don't protect the vulnerable - but if option 1 fails, option 2 is not viable indefinitely because it starts to killl more than it saves.  The question IMO is when we move to another option. 

[Lionator]

'Learning to live with the virus' is not carrying on as normal. It's taking the neccesary precautions.

 

There's 25 in ICU in the hospital in Manchester where my sister in laws works. If exponential growth takes place, that'll be 50 next week, then it'll be 100 the week after, then 200, 400 etc. Our hospitals can't cope with that. 30-40% of them will die (and that's down from the 50-60% in the first wave (thanks dexamethasone)). That's hundreds of deaths in the next few weeks in just one part of the country. So we need further restriction if the current ones dont work.

 

If there was no hope of a vaccine then maybe we should rehash this debate but for now it's not an issue for me. 

Edited 26 September 2020 by Lionator

[Alf Bentley]

22 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I don't know when there will be a vaccine.  I don't know if there will ever be a vaccine.  I don't know the details of how we protect the vulnerable.  

 

We have several choices but until the vaccine arrives, we don't know which to pick.  But one thing all options have in common is that the vulnerable should self-isolate until we have a herd immunity.  That is what we are doing now, option 1.  The vulnerable are self isolating until we have herd immunity created by vaccine. 

 

Another option, option 2, also being put into practice now, if that if we don't have a vaccine we continue self-isolating until we do.  If the vaccine never arrives, then herd immunity never arrives, and we stay like this forever.  This is what option 1 becomes if there is no vaccine  That is what we appear to be doing now.

 

Obviously IMO we need a third option.  One suggestion is that we try and create herd immunity by letting the healthy take their chances and protecting the vulnerable.  This would be option 3  And IMO again, as option 1 takes longer and longer and becomes the more certain to become option 2, then we need to morph into option 3.  

 

But my overriding point is that all these options have one thing in common.  The vulnerable have to self isolate for their own protection.  I don't see any way round it.  Until we have herd immunity, the vulnerable are vulnerable.  We can assess at what point (sans vaccine) we need to go out and try option 3 - which has to be better than option 4, where we take our chance and don't protect the vulnerable - but if option 1 fails, option 2 is not viable indefinitely because it starts to killl more than it saves.  The question IMO is when we move to another option. 

 

Although there are no guarantees and we may yet have to learn to live with this virus long-term, there seem to be promising signs that a vaccine may become available early in the New Year.

 

You seem to be assuming there will probably never be a workable vaccine. Indeed, you seem to be almost willing this to be the case and to be impatient to get on with your option 3 (herd immunity).

 

As there seems a reasonable chance of a vaccine within a few months, I think it makes sense to have a minimum of restrictions for those few months to save lives and health. Granted, we might need to rethink that strategy if no vaccine appears (and it makes sense to research options now). But there's no reason to assume that restrictions for a few months have to continue indefinitely. 

 

There are degrees of vulnerability and degrees of self-isolation by the vulnerable.

- If infection rates stay low over the next few months, even the risk to the vulnerable will be quite low and limited precautions will suffice (avoiding close contact with lots of people at busy indoor gatherings, mask or handwashing as appropriate etc.)

- If the "non-vulnerable" resume a normal life and infection rates rocket, a lot more people will have to self-isolate to a much greater extent....and many will still be at risk even if they do lock themselves up at home for months (which itself causes financial, employment or mental health problems for many, even if they don't get infected by a "non-vulnerable" family member).

 

The outlook will vary from one person to another. For me, under the first scenario I'd be able to mostly carry on as before (just not going into other people's houses, not going to gigs, avoiding packed pubs or football matches). Under the second scenario, I'd be at risk each time my daughter returns home and each time I leave the house.

 

Just imagine there was a new Covid revelation - that people with the user name Alf Bentley had zero Covid vulnerability and people with the user name dsr-burnley were highly vulnerable.....

Under your preferred Option 3, we presumably wouldn't wait to see if a vaccine materialises. The lucky majority including me would just get on with our normal lives and allow Covid to run riot, while you'd have to either run a major health risk or place yourself under long-term house arrest. How long would that house arrest last if herd immunity took years? Who knows and who cares, eh? And who knows how you'd be protected if a member of your household has to leave the house? None of that would matter, so long as I could get on with my normal life immediately and not endure some restrictions for a few months. 

 

[Jattdogg]

I think we all want normalcy back. The death rate isn't so high when you compare to something deadly like ebola or something but i dont see the problem with being more cautious over the next few months. Certain restrictions should be in place and if outbreaks occur then lock it down if absolutely necessary. 

 

When in your teens or 20s you may tend to think that you are invincible to these types of things but when you see or hear about more people in your age demographic dying from it then it might change your thought process.  Or not.

 

That Nick Cordero comedian was from my Canadian hometown and was about 1 year older then me. He suffered badly from covid until he died and it got me thinking wtf that could be me (although i hope thats never the case).

 

I recognize that you can't live in fear and see the economy collapse but perhaps for now we just need to deal with some restrictions and see how things go over the next few months. If no vaccine then we may have to also learn to live with it as many are suggesting. We all need jobs, food on the table and roofs over our heads right? 

 

I learned to not have to rely on going to a pub, or having to go to social events to enjoy my life. Dont get me wrong, who doesnt enjoy that but i'm willing to make some small sacrifices.  They pale in comparison to those who dont get to make choices given where they live etc. I also recognize many suffer from being alone, being trapped and mental health issues so it definitely a hard time to be in.

 

No matter what your views are on this topic i hope you all stay well, stay healthy and that your friends and loved ones never have to be on the bad end of this pandemic. I also hope you all continue to be employed or find work somewhere. Most importantly, never stop the whining in the match day or transfer threads. It just wouldn't be the same!

[FoxesDeb]

The silence from all those advocating for 'protect the vulnerable and let me carry on as normal' is deafening now they have been asked a specific question about how they see it actually playing out. Do they not have an answer I wonder, or are they too busy living out the 'I'm alright Jack' life? 

 

Fair play to @dsr-burnley for sticking with his argument, as contradictory as it may be, but then even hanging out here must be better than watching Burnley I guess 

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

The 90 year old man.

 

The 30 year old is extremely  unlikely to die of COVID and should take ownership of his life, eat or drink less and exercise a little more.

Same chance of dying but one has a potential 30 quality years left in him the other has 3.

 

If you are judging who should and shouldn't be protected it's those that can still contribute to society that are arguably more important than the really old.

 

This is one thing we're not asking people how many of the high risk vulnerable bracket would prefer to accept the risk of covid than have live a miserable locked down life shielding from loved ones? 

 

I think one of the most interesting stats at the moment is the current national death rate is below expected levels because so many of those that died in March - May would have died this year anyway. We will still end up with a lot more deaths than expected for this year, but the reason a lot of elderly people died is because they were old and vulnerable to a lot of things.

 

In answer to @FoxesDeb's question about how you protect the vulnerable you create bio secure areas offering comfort and protection to anyone who wants it and their dependents. Take over Centre Parcs or Butlins anyone who doesn't want to take their chances with covid can isolate in comfort. The rest can take their chances and live as normal.

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

Same chance of dying but one has a potential 30 quality years left in him the other has 3.

 

If you are judging who should and shouldn't be protected it's those that can still contribute to society that are arguably more important than the really old.

 

This is one thing we're not asking people how many of the high risk vulnerable bracket would prefer to accept the risk of covid than have live a miserable locked down life shielding from loved ones? 

 

I think one of the most interesting stats at the moment is the current national death rate is below expected levels because so many of those that died in March - May would have died this year anyway. We will still end up with a lot more deaths than expected for this year, but the reason a lot of elderly people died is because they were old and vulnerable to a lot of things.

 

In answer to @FoxesDeb's question about how you protect the vulnerable you create bio secure areas offering comfort and protection to anyone who wants it and their dependents. Take over Centre Parcs or Butlins anyone who doesn't want to take their chances with covid can isolate in comfort. The rest can take their chances and live as normal.

Subject me to Center Parcs? I'd rather take my chances with Covid! No, joking aside, 30% of our population are classified as vulnerable. What's that, about 20 million people? Plus their dependants? I can't be bothered to Google the capacity of our Center Parcs and Butlins, I already know it's nowhere near that 

[Alf Bentley]

37 minutes ago, Captain... said:

 

In answer to @FoxesDeb's question about how you protect the vulnerable you create bio secure areas offering comfort and protection to anyone who wants it and their dependents. Take over Centre Parcs or Butlins anyone who doesn't want to take their chances with covid can isolate in comfort. The rest can take their chances and live as normal.

 

Fair play to you for the being the first to make a serious suggestion as to how the vulnerable could be protected if the non-vulnerable didn't wait for the vaccine outcome but "learned to live with the virus" some time soon.

 

At first, I thought Deb's figure of 20m vulnerable was exaggerated. But I just checked and the figure for those aged 60+ alone is 16m.....and that doesn't include relative youngsters like Deb and me. 

 

Admittedly, many would choose to take their chances and only a few of those aged 60+ would have dependents. Even so, quite a problem accommodating even a few million people - potentially for a long time.

 

Then, what happens with those who do have dependents? What happens to my 16-year-old if her Mum and I move into Centre Parcs or Butlins (would definitely need to be separate cabins)?

Does my daughter have to give up college and move there indefinitely, too, or would she live alone in Leicester or commute to Leicester?

What about those who have much younger kids? Or families where the partner works as a doctor, care worker or bus driver? Or to elderly parents? Do people just not see their partners or parents potentially for years?

 

If no vaccine is found, we might have to "learn to live with Covid" but surely adopting precautions for a few months gives us the time: (a) to save lives while a vaccine might be discovered; (b) to get a viable test-and-trace system operational while infection numbers are low so as to massively reduce risk if we do have to live with Covid in the longer-term?

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

 

how many of the high risk vulnerable bracket would prefer to accept the risk of covid than have live a miserable locked down life shielding from loved ones? 

 

[fuchsntf]

I always Dreamed of Living the Dream of a Menage-a-trois....

But Living with my wife & Covid....is definiertely NOT what I imagined..

even if it does mean having those moments where it Takes your Breath away...

[FoxesDeb]

5 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Serious question, do you think your children would agree? I know you have said that your family struggled with the harsher restrictions, but don't you think they would rather put up with them for a while longer if it meant you would be around to hopefully see old age, especially without any further health restrictions that you may incur were you to contract Covid?

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Serious question, do you think your children would agree? I know you have said that your family struggled with the harsher restrictions, but don't you think they would rather put up with them for a while longer if it meant you would be around to hopefully see old age, especially without any further health restrictions that you may incur were you to contract Covid?

Here's the thing Deb and apologies if it sounds a bit morbid (and selfish)

 

I've had so many heath scares over the years that I'm passed caring. I've nearly died twice in the past and needed emergency surgery both times and I'm not scared in the slightest about dying. If I catch Covid and that's the end then so be it. I've had a good innings, seen and done what I've wanted in life and have no complaints.

 

As I said in the other thread, I'm more concerned now about the wellbeing of my kids. They're at an age where they crave social interaction and a good education (not home schooling) so I'm more bothered that they don't suffer (mentally) due to any further restrictions.

 

I'll still play by the rules but I fear for their future. The economy is going to the dogs and they're the ones who will struggle to get a job/buy a house etc. in the future. 

 

I don't know what the answer is and quite frankly it's above my pay grade, but we've got a young generation who are being deprived of enjoying the best time of their life to the max right now and I feel sorry for them. 

 

[FoxesDeb]

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Here's the thing Deb and apologies if it sounds a bit morbid (and selfish)

 

I've had so many heath scares over the years that I'm passed caring. I've nearly died twice in the past and needed emergency surgery both times and I'm not scared in the slightest about dying. If I catch Covid and that's the end then so be it. I've had a good innings, seen and done what I've wanted in life and have no complaints.

 

As I said in the other thread, I'm more concerned now about the wellbeing of my kids. They're at an age where they crave social interaction and a good education (not home schooling) so I'm more bothered that they don't suffer (mentally) due to any further restrictions.

 

I'll still play by the rules but I fear for their future. The economy is going to the dogs and they're the ones who will struggle to get a job/buy a house etc. in the future. 

 

I don't know what the answer is and quite frankly it's above my pay grade, but we've got a young generation who are being deprived of enjoying the best time of their life to the max right now and I feel sorry for them. 

 

Being concerned for our kids is natural, of course, and I am for mine too. But in my mind it's only been 6 months of restrictions, and we could do another 6. After all, we're not really actually that restricted are we? The economy problem I think needs to be put into perspective, someone only the other day posted to say so far it's cost each of us about £1800 I think? So I really struggle to see the doom and gloom for their futures at present. 

 

I think the sacrifices they are making are being grossly over played for the most part, and I certainly don't think my children are being deprived of very much, they missed a few months of school, 10 weeks of which would have been holidays anyway over Easter, half term and the summer, and now for them it's pretty much back to normal... I definitely think they would prefer I was still here and healthy, given the choice 

[Izzy]

15 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Being concerned for our kids is natural, of course, and I am for mine too. But in my mind it's only been 6 months of restrictions, and we could do another 6. After all, we're not really actually that restricted are we? The economy problem I think needs to be put into perspective, someone only the other day posted to say so far it's cost each of us about £1800 I think? So I really struggle to see the doom and gloom for their futures at present. 

No we're not really that restricted - at the moment. But who knows what the future holds and how long until we get a vaccine. I'm O.K. with the current set up as long as schools don't get closed down again for a significant period of time.

 

On the economy, I don't think we realise yet what the knock on effects of all this will be. My sense is we'll be paying for this for years and are facing a period of mass unemployment with certain markets and sectors being well and truly fvcked for a long time. Many businesses are on the brink and another 6 months + of this may well tip them over the edge.

 

Quote

 

I think the sacrifices they are making are being grossly over played for the most part, and I certainly don't think my children are being deprived of very much, they missed a few months of school, 10 weeks of which would have been holidays anyway over Easter, half term and the summer, and now for them it's pretty much back to normal... I definitely think they would prefer I was still here and healthy, given the choice 

Remember my kids hate me so they don't give a fvck if I'm here or not 

 

The last 6 months has been tough for them but they're O.K. now they're back at school with some structure. As long as they stay at school with some sort of normality in their lives then I'm happy. They're still missing out on certain clubs that have been cancelled and if restrictions get tighter then they might not be able to nip round their mates house as normal. 

 

They'll probably have have to rely more on Zoom and Facetime which will turn them into bigger social retards than they currently are. 

 

 

Edited 26 September 2020 by Izzy

[reynard]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

Subject me to Center Parcs? I'd rather take my chances with Covid! No, joking aside, 30% of our population are classified as vulnerable. What's that, about 20 million people? Plus their dependants? I can't be bothered to Google the capacity of our Center Parcs and Butlins, I already know it's nowhere near that 

Yes. 5.4 million Asthma sufferers to start with. 1.5 million told to shield. 16 million people known to have some kind of underlying health issue as quoted by Whitty. Everyone over the age of 50. Some of these figures will overlap but the only reason more haven't died so far is because everyone was made to stay at home.

Then add to that all the people who will die of become gravely ill beacause the hospitals could be overrun with covid patients.

The mark of any decent society is how it looks after its vulnerable and those less able to look after themselves. Living with the virus is what we are doing now by trying to live some kind of normal life, keeping the economy going as best we can and by delaying the spread of the virus so that we have time to develop better treatments or vaccines or both.

I'm starting to get fed up with talk of the "weak" having to shield themselves so the so-called strong can go and live their lives normally. It is beginning to sound like an argument for eugenics. To those who feel confident they will be all right please go and volunteer on one of the vaccine trials to be deliberately infected with the virus so we can speed up vaccine development. That would be a service to humanity.

[worthosoriginals]

Nature needs to come up with a better virus to eliminate the entire human race, scratching the surface is a start but must try and come up with a better one

[reynard]

33 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Here's the thing Deb and apologies if it sounds a bit morbid (and selfish)

 

I've had so many heath scares over the years that I'm passed caring. I've nearly died twice in the past and needed emergency surgery both times and I'm not scared in the slightest about dying. If I catch Covid and that's the end then so be it. I've had a good innings, seen and done what I've wanted in life and have no complaints.

 

As I said in the other thread, I'm more concerned now about the wellbeing of my kids. They're at an age where they crave social interaction and a good education (not home schooling) so I'm more bothered that they don't suffer (mentally) due to any further restrictions.

 

I'll still play by the rules but I fear for their future. The economy is going to the dogs and they're the ones who will struggle to get a job/buy a house etc. in the future. 

 

I don't know what the answer is and quite frankly it's above my pay grade, but we've got a young generation who are being deprived of enjoying the best time of their life to the max right now and I feel sorry for them. 

 

The answer now is to try and be positive. The economy will recover. We've been in worst positions before in 1919 and 1945 and we've pulled through. I have agreat deal of belief and faith in the younger generation. They are more tolerant and understanding. In many places in the world, though by no means sufficent, you are no longer persucuted for your sexuality  and though race equality has a long way to go I think your kid's generation will be the one that finally tackles it. The same too with climate change. Yes they are being deprived of something at the moment but when this is over or easier, and it will be, then they will be able to party like there's no tomorrow as those people did in 1919 and 1945.

[Izzy]

8 minutes ago, reynard said:

The answer now is to try and be positive. The economy will recover. We've been in worst positions before in 1919 and 1945 and we've pulled through. I have agreat deal of belief and faith in the younger generation. They are more tolerant and understanding. In many places in the world, though by no means sufficent, you are no longer persucuted for your sexuality  and though race equality has a long way to go I think your kid's generation will be the one that finally tackles it. The same too with climate change. Yes they are being deprived of something at the moment but when this is over or easier, and it will be, then they will be able to party like there's no tomorrow as those people did in 1919 and 1945.

Nice post, I hope you're right 

[Strokes]

43 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Being concerned for our kids is natural, of course, and I am for mine too. But in my mind it's only been 6 months of restrictions, and we could do another 6. After all, we're not really actually that restricted are we? The economy problem I think needs to be put into perspective, someone only the other day posted to say so far it's cost each of us about £1800 I think? So I really struggle to see the doom and gloom for their futures at present. 

 

I think the sacrifices they are making are being grossly over played for the most part, and I certainly don't think my children are being deprived of very much, they missed a few months of school, 10 weeks of which would have been holidays anyway over Easter, half term and the summer, and now for them it's pretty much back to normal... I definitely think they would prefer I was still here and healthy, given the choice 

Hmm, I think you forget what time is like as a kid. My kids are 9 and 10 and if this goes on another 6 months they will have spent 10% of their lives with Covid restrictions of some sort. 
I can see the effect it’s having on them already and I know this will have a huge bearing on the rest of their lives.

I wish I knew what the right answer was, but if another full lockdown happens, I think we kiss goodbye to the world we knew.

[Izzy]

It's not just our primary/secondary school kids who I feel for, but university students too. 

Coronavirus: Students 'scared and confused' as halls lock down

Students have spoken of their worry and confusion at being locked down in their university halls, in a situation described by unions as "shambolic".

Up to 1,700 students at Manchester Metropolitan University and hundreds at other institutions, including in Edinburgh and Glasgow, are self-isolating following Covid-19 outbreaks. In Manchester, students are being prevented from leaving by security. Universities UK said the wellbeing of students was "the first priority".

Robert Halfon, the conservative chairman of the Education Select Committee, said 3,000 students were in lockdown at universities from Dundee to Exeter. He called for the government and its scientific advisers to reassure students and families by setting out the policy for England - and warned having students in lockdown at Christmas would cause "huge anguish".