You think that the under 30's are the ones that will need to be locked down!
It should be the other way around surely?
Let the older more vulnerable people isolate if they want to isolate, they can do it for the rest of their lives if they so choose, but let the younger people live. Even if they have not had a vaccine it's very unlikely covid will kill them, they can still spread it but they say that about the vaccinated also, so what's the difference?
We can't go on indefinitely like this, it's affecting our young peoples education, social skills, mental health etc etc etc, how long do you want to see that continue?
At some point we as a nation are going to have to stand up and make our own personal decisions about how we will deal with covid in life going forward, and ignore Boris's 'one rule fit's all' solutions.
Covid is here for life just as the common cold, flu etc is, we need to live with it and re-gain our freedom to live as free human beings.
You've misunderstood what I was saying completely.
At the moment infections and hospitalisations are occurring in the under 30s more than in the double jabbed oldies.
Previously (and I think this would have been a better option) it would have made sense to lock down the older more vulnerable. But now the opposite is true. So it would have been more sensible to lockdown only those not vaccinated. But instead what's more likely to happen is that they'll lockdown everyone if the numbers go the wrong way rather than look at less popular but probably more effective measures.
Will we have to live with this yes of course. But a few months back it made sense to protect older people. Now it's the younger people that need protecting.
Plus I'm only 44 for fuck sake I'm hardly a pensioner! I can't wait for this shit to be over, but targeted measures would be much more effective than letting rampant infections occur in everyone without a vaccine.
I don't think i misunderstood.
What i am trying to say is that even though the younger gen is currently more likely to catch or spread the virus, they are very much less likely to die or become seriously ill from it, so why would keeping the younger gen locked down be a good option considering the virus can still be spread by the older vaccinated of our community?
I agree with the targeting of rules, it would be a much better way of doing it as long as they don't make them totally uncontrollable by making them so complicated.
Boris "you can now go out but only if your under 30 years old, but over 30's can go out but only if they are under 30 and have had a vaccine, over 50's need to stay in and isolate if they so choose but don't isolate unless you think it's right, under 50's should isolate unless they have had a vaccine or are under 30 years old and have had 1 vaccine and are thinking about getting second dose with the next 2 weeks, anyone over 60, well your fucked'
Stay at home.
Protect our corrupt capitalist ventures
Go poor....
It's definitely a tricky one. I'm double jabbed so I'm as batfink as I'm gonna be so gagging for some normal tbh. Just hoping this shit gets better soon.
You've misunderstood what I was saying completely.
At the moment infections and hospitalisations are occurring in the under 30s more than in the double jabbed oldies.
Previously (and I think this would have been a better option) it would have made sense to lock down the older more vulnerable. But now the opposite is true. So it would have been more sensible to lockdown only those not vaccinated. But instead what's more likely to happen is that they'll lockdown everyone if the numbers go the wrong way rather than look at less popular but probably more effective measures.
Will we have to live with this yes of course. But a few months back it made sense to protect older people. Now it's the younger people that need protecting.
Plus I'm only 44 for fuck sake I'm hardly a pensioner! I can't wait for this shit to be over, but targeted measures would be much more effective than letting rampant infections occur in everyone without a vaccine.
I don't think i misunderstood.
What i am trying to say is that even though the younger gen is currently more likely to catch or spread the virus, they are very much less likely to die or become seriously ill from it, so why would keeping the younger gen locked down be a good option considering the virus can still be spread by the older vaccinated of our community?
I agree with the targeting of rules, it would be a much better way of doing it as long as they don't make them totally uncontrollable by making them so complicated.
Boris "you can now go out but only if your under 30 years old, but over 30's can go out but only if they are under 30 and have had a vaccine, over 50's need to stay in and isolate if they so choose but don't isolate unless you think it's right, under 50's should isolate unless they have had a vaccine or are under 30 years old and have had 1 vaccine and are thinking about getting second dose with the next 2 weeks, anyone over 60, well your fucked'
Stay at home.
Protect our corrupt capitalist ventures
Go poor....
It's definitely a tricky one. I'm double jabbed so I'm as batfink as I'm gonna be so gagging for some normal tbh. Just hoping this shit gets better soon.
