Should young people be freed form lockdown and social distancing rules?

Watch
ryanwhitt443
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
We are the least likely to even have any symptoms, asymptomatic transmission is lower, perhaps significantly, thatn symptomatic transmission, and mental health needs are probably a greater threat than physical ones, eg, rise in suicide etc. I believe therefore that those least at risk of getting the virus, eg, under 25s, should not be required to follow any rules. I know this may sound selfish, but psycologists have already pointed out in the Lancet that these years are crucial to young people's development and social deprivation could increase.
1
reply
josie71202
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
what can't teens do that's so crucial to development from a 2m distance
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by ryanwhitt443)
We are the least likely to even have any symptoms, asymptomatic transmission is lower, perhaps significantly, thatn symptomatic transmission, and mental health needs are probably a greater threat than physical ones, eg, rise in suicide etc. I believe therefore that those least at risk of getting the virus, eg, under 25s, should not be required to follow any rules. I know this may sound selfish, but psycologists have already pointed out in the Lancet that these years are crucial to young people's development and social deprivation could increase.
No
4
reply
ryanwhitt443
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by josie71202)
what can't teens do that's so crucial to development from a 2m distance
Quite a lot.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by ryanwhitt443)
Quite a lot.
That's not an answer
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by ryanwhitt443)
We are the least likely to even have any symptoms, asymptomatic transmission is lower, perhaps significantly, thatn symptomatic transmission, and mental health needs are probably a greater threat than physical ones, eg, rise in suicide etc. I believe therefore that those least at risk of getting the virus, eg, under 25s, should not be required to follow any rules. I know this may sound selfish, but psycologists have already pointed out in the Lancet that these years are crucial to young people's development and social deprivation could increase.
Nope you can still be carriers. Yep you sound selfish.
2
reply
Synergy_
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by ryanwhitt443)
We are the least likely to even have any symptoms, asymptomatic transmission is lower, perhaps significantly, thatn symptomatic transmission, and mental health needs are probably a greater threat than physical ones, eg, rise in suicide etc. I believe therefore that those least at risk of getting the virus, eg, under 25s, should not be required to follow any rules. I know this may sound selfish, but psycologists have already pointed out in the Lancet that these years are crucial to young people's development and social deprivation could increase.
They would be getting it into their households.
1
reply
Moonbow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Synergy_)
They would be getting it into their households.
(Original post by 999tigger)
Nope you can still be carriers. Yep you sound selfish.
PRSOM guys!!
0
reply
josie71202
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by ryanwhitt443)
Quite a lot.
give examples all I can think of is they can't kiss or have sex
2
reply
ryanwhitt443
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by josie71202)
give examples all I can think of is they can't kiss or have sex
Those two for a start, do anything like go to the cinema , go to school properly, go to university , go to nightclub, eat out, meet more than six people. Ah well. Most young people I see don't bother with it anyway.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
No, it's not just about the person maintaining restrictions, it's about them not passing on the virus to vulnerable people.
3
reply
ryanwhitt443
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by barnetlad)
No, it's not just about the person maintaining restrictions, it's about them not passing on the virus to vulnerable people.
Maybe they should either be made to either just see their friends but if they choose to do this they cannot come within 2 metres of a vulenrsble person anyway. These people are still shielding anyway
0
reply
Chlopril
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
It's hard to say because research into the virus is still ongoing. something like 25-50% is asymptomatic. But the restrictions in place isn't to stop you from getting the virus its to stop you from spreading it to other people. And if the government decided to lock down earlier we wouldn't have the deaths we had and we could of ended the lock down far sooner than we currently are.
1
reply
LovelyMrFox
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
No. I have a 20 year old friend who is currently in the hospital due to Covid.

Underlying medical conditions + Covid is not a joke. Plus, we all need to stay home to stop the spread, and protect the elderly ( and the immuno-compromised ) who still need to get groceries and pick up their prescriptions.
3
reply
Sinnoh
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
Are you sure the risk of transmission is that far reduced when there are no symptoms?
1
reply
josie71202
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by ryanwhitt443)
Maybe they should either be made to either just see their friends but if they choose to do this they cannot come within 2 metres of a vulenrsble person anyway. These people are still shielding anyway
a lot of vulnerable people can't shield because the accessibility provisions allowing work from home are being removed
0
reply
ryanwhitt443
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by LovelyMrFox)
No. I have a 20 year old friend who is currently in the hospital due to Covid.

Underlying medical conditions + Covid is not a joke. Plus, we all need to stay home to stop the spread, and protect the elderly ( and the immuno-compromised ) who still need to get groceries and pick up their prescriptions.
Yes, it does happen but it is so so rare, even rarer to stop it.

Well the stay at home message went quite a while ago. Although I have stayed at home even more since restrictions were lifted.#
0
reply
LovelyMrFox
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by ryanwhitt443)
Yes, it does happen but it is so so rare, even rarer to stop it.

Well the stay at home message went quite a while ago. Although I have stayed at home even more since restrictions were lifted.#
What do you mean by, "even rarer to stop it"?

Did it really go quiet a while ago? This morning I was still seeing news articles shaming people for going to the beaches in the US.
Then you say you have stayed at home even more. Why is that? You make it seem like you know that transmission is still a thing, and its going to be much higher of a risk with many people around. You know deep down that 'freeing young people from lockdown' is a bad idea.
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
No. While young people are less affected you're not immune and plenty of under 25s have died of Covid. You're also still able to get it and transmit it to others.
2
reply
ryanwhitt443
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by LovelyMrFox)
What do you mean by, "even rarer to stop it"?

Did it really go quiet a while ago? This morning I was still seeing news articles shaming people for going to the beaches in the US.
Then you say you have stayed at home even more. Why is that? You make it seem like you know that transmission is still a thing, and its going to be much higher of a risk with many people around. You know deep down that 'freeing young people from lockdown' is a bad idea.
I've stayed at home more because I still don't trust the government on their other messages. All in all though, social distancing cannot be maintained and I think we will just have to accept deaths until a vaccine or treatment.

I know this is extreme, but social distancing means people cannot have relationships, therefore they cannot have sex, so they can't reproduec and so depending on how long this goes on for, we could have a potential de-population issue.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you finding researching unis for 2021 entry?

I have been able to get all the information I need from online research (65)
19.35%
I have tried virtual events and found them useful (72)
21.43%
I have tried virtual events and did not find them useful (62)
18.45%
I would be interested in trying socially distanced or scaled down in person events (70)
20.83%
I want to but don't know where to start with researching unis for 2021 entry (34)
10.12%
I haven't started researching yet (33)
9.82%

Watched Threads

View All