Good explainer on cocooning

How long is this cocooning likely to last. My grandparents in their early 80s but in good health are struggling already.
 
Of course after this, they will have to explain why they now expect people to work until they are 68 and yet two years later, they are considered vulnerable at times like this.....there are plenty of 70 year olds that would put 50 year olds to shame.
 
Sunny said:
Of course after this, they will have to explain why they now expect people to work until they are 68 and yet two years later, they are considered vulnerable at times like this.....there are plenty of 70 year olds that would put 50 year olds to shame.
Click to expand...

Well there is no way to make allowances for each and every individual so they have to make broad sweeping rules for the benefit of the majority to the annoyance of the minority perhaps.
 
Eireog007 said:
Well there is no way to make allowances for each and every individual so they have to make broad sweeping rules for the benefit of the majority to the annoyance of the minority perhaps.
Click to expand...

Minority? So two years after retirement, the majority of people are vulnerable? The median age of deaths is still over 80. Not sure what the median age of people of people in hospital or intensive care is. Locking healthy 70 year olds up for 5 weeks has it's own health risks.....not saying they were wrong but there is a time limit to this restriction like all the others..
 
Sunny said:
Minority? So two years after retirement, the majority of people are vulnerable? The median age of deaths is still over 80. Not sure what the median age of people of people in hospital or intensive care is. Locking healthy 70 year olds up for 5 weeks has it's own health risks.....not saying they were wrong but there is a time limit to this restriction like all the others..
Click to expand...

If you were to take a census of everybody over the age of 70 then yes in my opinion those who are fit and healthy enough to go out walking and for trips relatively regularly would be the minority. There is nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution when your goal is to save lives.
My grandparents fall on either side of this divide with my grandad very active and not great at having nothing to do and my grandmother recently had a stay in hospital which has left her immune system heavily compromised so I can see both sides of this.
 
Eireog007 said:
Well there is no way to make allowances for each and every individual so they have to make broad sweeping rules for the benefit of the majority to the annoyance of the minority perhaps.
Click to expand...

It's like allowing someone to get behind a wheel, get married or have a drink once they reach some magical birthday.
The bar is set that it applies to the vast majority, but of course there are some 14 year olds who would make excellent drivers.
And some 20 year olds who aren't mature enough to handle their drink.
But the cost of filtering to 99% or 100% accuracy is not practical.
 
odyssey06 said:
It's like allowing someone to get behind a wheel, get married or have a drink once they reach some magical birthday.
The bar is set that it applies to the vast majority, but of course there are some 14 year olds who would make excellent drivers.
And some 20 year olds who aren't mature enough to handle their drink.
But the cost of filtering to 99% or 100% accuracy is not practical.
Click to expand...

Pretty much exactly my sentiments.
 
As the discharge of a 101 year old man from a hospital in England showed, age is not a perfect guide to Covid19 survival. But the exact factors that determine vulnerability are unclear, and it is difficult to give nuanced advice in public announcements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top