jaynewcastle wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:49 pm

Dunderhead wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:31 pm At the risk of sounding realistic, the idea that the young should have all their freedoms removed to protect the elderly from avirus with s 99.8 % survival rate is madness but some people just can't see the forest for the trees. The scaremongering is based on them being so numerous.

Care to tell us what the survival rate is for people over 80 ?

The whole reason everybody is taking precautions is to protect the most vulnerable members of society

Its not a case of saying I'll be fine because I'm young & fit, people have to think about the wider effects & implications

Just to add to jaynewcastle's valid point... yes, they're protecting the most vulnerable which isn't only the elderly, it includes people with everyday conditions like diabetes, asthma, the overweight or obese but they're also trying to protect the hospitals / health systems which are dangerously close to being overwhelmed in a lot of places. Anyone who thinks that's not a big deal should watch what's unfolding in India at the moment.

jaynewcastle wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:49 pm

Dunderhead wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:31 pm At the risk of sounding realistic, the idea that the young should have all their freedoms removed to protect the elderly from avirus with s 99.8 % survival rate is madness but some people just can't see the forest for the trees. The scaremongering is based on them being so numerous.

Care to tell us what the survival rate is for people over 80 ?

The whole reason everybody is taking precautions is to protect the most vulnerable members of society

Its not a case of saying I'll be fine because I'm young & fit, people have to think about the wider effects & implications

If people think they are in high risk groups they should restrict themselves, and not expect the majority of the world to isolate themselves just to maybe provide a safeguard from a virus with a 98-99% survival rate for healthy people. Hypothetically let’s say a new virus only affects people that are 43 years old (yea, impossible, but just go with me). Do we shut down the entire world for this one age group or tell those that are 43 to stay put until something is figured out? Of course it’s the latter, but that is using common sense. Same goes for those vulnerable at 60+ and those with pre-existing conditions with regards to Covid. But that would require those age groups to sacrifice something for the greater good, so that people can keep their jobs and keep things going to avoid a collapse. But no, lets force younger healthier people to sacrifice their jobs, freedom, and sanity for no reason. It’s the same with social security, screw the younger people as long as people are getting their full checks now.

TheImplication wrote:If people think they are in high risk groups they should restrict themselves, and not expect the majority of the world to isolate themselves just to maybe provide a safeguard from a virus with a 98-99% survival rate for healthy people.

Millions of Indians followed your most wise advice. The ‘majority’ went to mass religious gatherings where tens of thousands (or more) packed together, celebrating in complete happiness.

Then they all went home, and brought the virus to all those others who were dutifully restricting themselves just as you suggested.

End result?

Hospitals are now out of beds, and even out of oxygen.

Not everyone is as responsible as you, never visiting their parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. And always checking the health history of every person before they meet them. Being super careful to never meet a person in a high risk group.

Ref. India: the death spike happened at the same time as Ivermectin treatment was abandoned in favour of vaccines:

https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/04/25/in ... ng-to-you/

Today Monday 26th April 2021 Thailand covid infection reported 2,048 new cases and 8 deaths