I suspect your last paragraph is meant in jest, although it is an economic view that has been expressed by at least one US politician.BCHammer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:46 amI drive a van and deliver to hospitals and care homes among many other places. The first outbreak in Vancouver was at a care home I went to regularly, they lost a third of their residents. 20 died in a month. They were elderly and would have died sooner than everyone else anyway, so it doesn't matter right? You might be ready to go, but those people didn't get a choice because a staff member brought it in. Those people had children and grandchildren who not only lost their loved one sooner than expected but didn't get a chance to say goodbye either. As getting to know some of the staff there, they were devastated and that is the type of situation that the government is trying to avoid - those vulnerable were not able to take steps to protect themselves, they and their loved ones thought they were in such a place where they were protected.Whiskyman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 5:49 pm
I get that mate. But common sense dictates if you're vulnerable, to anything, not just this, you take steps to protect yourself. And maybe it's just the way my mind works but even if you are in the so called vulnerable group and you are prepared to take the risk of infection, for example to see your grandchildren and give them a hug, you should be free to do so. We all take risks of some sort every day in our lives, some take greater risks than others, but as long as we're aware of those risks, such as those of us who smoke (not me) or those that drink more than the recommended guidelines (guilty, m'lud), I don't see the problem. Let us be accountable for our own actions. If we want to shut ourselves away, walk around in face masks or bath daily in bloody Domestos, we should be free to do so. But there are a great many who don't.
Mind you, if you get rid of all the seniors, that sorts out the pension problems. Get rid of the weak, that reduces the burden on the health care system too, so wins all round - right?
But to address your point. I fail to see how relaxing the rigid lockdown rules we are currently experiencing in the UK would increase the risks to people in care homes. Delivery people, at least in the UK, now have to conform to certain rules and regulations when delivering to private residences so the same, maybe even more stringent rules, apply when delivering to places like care homes. No one is suggesting good hygiene practices should be abandoned for heaven's sake.
However relaxing, for example, personal freedom of movement restrictions, such as allowing people to travel to and attend, as an example, sporting events, will in no way increase the risk to, using your analogy, care home residents. The people most vulnerable to this virus are already well aware of their "vulnerability". It is however a fact that many who are told they should feel vulnerable, I'm in this group because of age, don't necessarily buy into all the hype and hysteria.
It is not heartless ior uncaruing to suggest that 80 year olds are unlikely to pick up the virus by mixing with people who have travelled to a sporting event. However, and I believe this is an important point to make, if an 80 year old wishes to spend some time with his or her family and, for all intents and purposes stuff two fingers up at the "rule of 6" to do so, why should they not be free to do so ?.
People in poor health, and those who are old and frail, will still be protected. No one is suggesting otherwise. But the one size fits all restrictions being placed on large sections of our population, at enormous economic cost, totally outweighs all other considerations.