UKC

So, the young will be paying off the covid debt for the rest of their lives, the possibly inevitable interest rate rise will make mortgages unaffordable, and the governments mortgage guarantee will pump up demand for housing without increasing supply, so the cost of housing will rise well out of your reach.  Add to this the number of jobs lost, often in sectors affecting the young, and the damage to education and the long term affect that has on earnings its not a happy time going forwards for the younger generation.

... and in the nearer term it'll be around October before 70% of the British population are vaccinated, so you healthy youngsters are not going to see a vaccine passport until some time around Christmas.  Forget that trip to Font.  You're trapped.

I see cruise bookings for the summer are up, and 60+ vaccinated generation are agitating to be let out to party.

Pi**ed off?  I would be.

Do the politicians care?  Not really.  The younger generation don't vote.  Why make policies to make their lives easier? Pensioners have a tripple lock on their pension for a reason.

I think the main problem would be if a new variant emerges later in the year which is resistant to the vaccines and so lockdown rolls on.

At which point after seeing the lack of f*cks given by the older generation once they felt safe the favour is likely to be returned.

If those are the choices the government makes then the young can choose to make it not a happy time for government. It's a shit one but we do still live in a democracy.

Maybe. We'll see what happens come summer holiday season, I suspect it'll be faltering chaos like last year.

Not really. It's a matter of months, if businesses can get back onto their feet, get people back n employment earlier on the back of the older generation's ability and willingness to congregate and spend then fair enough, let's get on with life and start rebuilding.

Lets also not forget those businesses which still can't survive on a partial client base.

The younger generation didn't vote. Nor did many that turned out for brexit. Things can change, if that fells a complacent Conservative government I for one will laugh my tits off. If it doesn't I guess we get the government we deserve.

jk

When are the vaccine passports coming out? What form are they going to take? 
 

I’ve not seen any details or any confirmation that we are getting any. 

It does feel very unfair - but if there are bits of the economy we can get going safely, shouldn't we do so as soon as possible?

That gets more people back to work, and reduces the overall cost of this whole disaster.

Not much of this whole thing is fair (see furlough for example) - isn't it mostly just driven by necessity?

Or do you think the sheer unfairness of it might simply stop young people complying? Do we have leaders capable and charismatic enough to sell it as a necessary evil?

(I speak as a parent of two school-age kids, who doesn't expect to be able to get abroad for some time as they won't be getting vaccine passports in any hurry.)

The practicalities of actually getting a vaccine passport system up and running, in the timescale where it would be relevant, may be a different thing.

Requirement already for France COVID test then travel with a valid reason. However France has about 21.6k new cases, the third highest in the world. U.K. has 4.7k. and health services in Paris have had to have a 40% cut in medical treatment to cover rise in COVID. So France just might go back into lockdown so no Font trip. But if you’re young you have the whole of your life to visit.

I spent the first 46 years of my life with Britain paying off its World War 2 debt:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6215847.stm

It's the way it goes.  You'll have forgotten all about it in a year or twos time!

Well, perhaps, but then so are older people who haven't seen their family for over a year and don't have so many more summers to look forward to either.

Shit happens, it's nobody's fault. How else would you have organised the vaccination programme - by immunising the least at risk first?

If the government want to automate the process of nailing shut the coffin of intergenerational respect and trust vaccine passports are a great way of doing it, I have no faith whatsoever that the government won't see this as a target.

By all means get the economy up and running again but do it in a safe and equitable manner. It wouldn't be ok if we said that only men, or white people could go to the pub without restrictions (substitute whatever bit of normal life you like here), it's also not ok to say that only people who have got the vaccine beacuse they are are old or of otherwise poor health can return to normal life while other people are under continuing restrictions simply because they are young/ healthy.

It's basically either a choice of businesses stay shut, or they open for those who are vaccinated. 

Also, are you meaning vaccine passports to travel abroad or for uk businesses? Foreign travel ones are outwith our control anyway, although I hope it's a policy we implement for incoming travellers.

Either way, younger people who haven't yet had the chance to be vaccinated lose out, so no difference for them either way. It does mean some work for businesses though. 

It would mean I could go places my husband can't, that would be unfortunate, but at the end of the day this whole thing is unfortunate! We just have to get on with it and suck it up. (Ironically, I never really go to the sorts of places which would require a vaccine passport anyway! I just want to get groups out in the hills again)

Which would you prefer:

1. virus discriminates against the old to kill them and vaccination passport discriminates against young who get vaccinated last;
2. virus discriminates against the young to kill them and vaccination passport discriminates against old who get vaccinated last?

Anyway, since UK is vaccinating relatively quickly you will probably be vaccinated before foreign destinations open up for non-essential travel.

Its a matter of time.

The only unknown is whether there'll be "green passes" similar to Isreal so you can go to a restaurant/pub.  Currently it seems unlikely these'll be used in the UK, but we wait and see.

Unknowns.

There are no details or confirmation but there's a good chance the UK govt will have to sign up to some international agreement(s) on proof of vaccination so we can travel because various countries have entry requirements already.

I guess having a foreign holiday is some kind of human right these days. Their mental health must be in tatters at the thought of not being able to blow a grand getting smashed of their face somewhere slightly warmer for 2 weeks in July. 

Me too with older kids and I just see their potential debt levels rising.  Japanese style 50 year mortgages you leave to your kids anyone?

I used to work in Marketing and their are a number of "secure printers" who can produces and mail thousands of documents from a database with inbuilt security "devices" every day.  If the Government accessed existing resources rather than trying to reinvent the wheel it could be done, besides it could simply be electronic and attached to your passport somehow to be looked up at exit and entry.

There were a few folk on this site complaining their mental heath was in tatters not being allowed to climb across the country to play on a bit of rock.

Different things are important to different people. 

Huge thank you to the team of government officials, researchers and medical staff for the UK's great vaccine programme.  Thank goodness we're not caught up in the EU debacle.

This article was quite interesting, in a survey 40% of those over 80 who have been vacinated have admitted to now breaking the COVID rules/guidance still in force. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/04/about-40-of-over-80s-in-engla...

This is pretty disheartening given a lot of younger people have sacrificed a lot economically and mental health wise to protect this generation. As we open up (you can see the “everyone back into offices/trains” day is coming) they are also the age group now most at risk given majority are unvaccinated - clearly the risk is lower for this age group but its not removed and many will die/get seriously ill.

The quote from a director Age UK is interesting, basically saying she has broken the rules (doubt the police will be calling) and people just need to apply “common sense”.......which has worked out so well before.

Maybe they could use covid to gain a sense of importance or priorities. 

Besides it's usually the young complaining the old have destroyed the planet and their future. Shouldn't they be holidaying within cycling distance of home. 

Vaccine passports discriminate against the young??  So does the current regime for giving older people the vaccine.  Perhaps random vaccine passports/testing/vaccines?  'cos we 'don't want to discriminate'.

I don't see the problem I'm afraid.

They only consolidated debt relating to the South Sea Bubble crisis of 1720, the Napoleonic and Crimean wars, the abolition of slavery and the Irish potato famine in 2015 -

https://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/2014/oct/31/paying-the-price-of-w...

I agree, it's likely to be awful - but isn't that a reason to start getting some things moving with vaccine passports, getting some more people back to work?

Details below from your Guardian URL. Do you think she did the wrong thing?

Abrahams admitted: “I broke the rules myself a few weeks ago by helping a neighbour in her 90s understand an official letter that was worrying her. She is bedbound and hard of hearing and insisted on talking to me face to face."

“I was very conscious of the potential risk of infection and took all the precautions I could. It felt like the right thing to do and I imagine many others have found themselves in similar positions."

“When situations like this arise it’s down to us all to be responsible and use our common sense.”

That’s not breaking the rules though. 

Did you follow the other thread about the cost of lockdown?

Given the graceless refusal to acknowledge the reality of who's paying for keeping them alive by the coffin-dodgers of this website, should this happen again I'll be the first to campaign for fencing off East Anglia and forcibly busing everyone over 65 there while we get on with our lives.

Quite a turnaround in my politics. Just goes to show what a little gratitude - or lack of it - can achieve.

Difficult one - is it any worse/better than some of the other things that people call out on here as not being acceptable? Or does it illicit less outrage because of the age of the individual concerned and/or her professional standing?

My point was more about the rule breaking by those vacinated which is putting those who haven’t been vacinated at risk - this is likely to become an issue over the summer as the death rate reduces but the proportion of younger people dying increases. It’s pretty disrespectful to those who sacrificed a lot for those who are now safe to “do what they like” rather than behave for the common good.

Well then, wait with the negativity until you actually have something to be negative about. 
 

Every indication is that 90%+ of the population are coming forward for vaccinations. If this is repeated in other countries then there will be no need for individuals to have vaccine passports so long as they are travelling to a country with high vaccinations and/or low incidence. 
 

Let the countries who can’t guarantee your safety worry about how they attract people who aren’t vaccinated there. 

I think there are two parts to your post.

For the vaccine roll out I don't see much option other than the way we are doing it. As you say this might understandably annoy some younger people. In the short term, I think it would be helpful if the people benefiting from this policy appeared to be more grateful. 

The second point requires them to show their gratitude, by dipping into their pockets, at the moment that doesn't seem popular/likely. If we have a radically different government/society in 10/20 years time they might regret that.

Given the circumstances and care taken to reduce risks, kindness to an elderly neighbour is to be commended and elicits no outrage. 

If that wasn't your point better not to include it.

Some countries are introducing different guidance (US) or law (Israel?) for vaccinated/unvaccinated. The US is doing it now, Israel waited most people offered the vaccine.

It's a political decision if the duty of those vaccinated is to show solidarity with those still waiting or their duty is to get the economy moving asap.
 

Let them out, but sting them for as much tax as possible. Win win.

Yes, and being vaccinated does change what is acceptable, even if we don't say so in law at the moment. 

I'm due my second vaccine this week and my mum is getting her first next week. 3 weeks after she has had her first, we will consider it acceptable for me to go into her house ( not with my husband). Legally, we already could do this, but it seems foolish to do so. We have dinner outside with her every week just now. But vaccination does change what we consider acceptable risk. 

It always will, because it does lower the risk!

Agree with you ref. vaccination roll out priority nothing else that could have been done, we just need to keep up the pace.

In grossly simplistic, clearly discriminatory/inflammatory language and binary categorisation you have two groups (the reality is obviously much more complex):

Group A:

- Protected via economic/personal sacrifice by Group A

- Have not seen any drop income (pensions have not been cut)

- Typically own their own home outright, hence a drop in income would have a reduced impact

- Are now vaccinated and "safe"

- Will not be facing the burden of the borrowing for as long as Group A

Group B

- Have made significant economic sacrifices now to protect Group A......if your lucky reduction in income, if not lost all income

- Typically do not own their homes (and may never), hence a drop in income has a material impact

- Are not vaccinated and potentially will be 'told' to go back to work/public transport in this state with the associated risks shortly

- Will be facing the burden of borrowing for a large proportion of their future lives


How Group A behaves, communicates, show compassion, recognizes the above situation will determine the reaction of Group B to any future challenges that Group A/society faces.

At an extreme if there is no recognition the divides in society will accelerate further which history shows can lead to dramatic consequences/circumstances.

Ultimately everyone has sacrificed something for Covid-19......so we all need to show compassion and try and focus on how we improve the situation for all with the new set of economic and societal circumstances we face whilst recognizing where some people are starting from is considerably less favorable.

"It's a political decision if the duty of those vaccinated is to show solidarity with those still waiting or their duty is to get the economy moving asap"

Noting getting the economy moving is going to require the unvaccinated members of the population to physically get back to work in a lot of circumstances (via trains, public transport etc.) and place themselves at risk.......but I am sure we can rely on all those vaccinated to adhere to social distancing guidelines etc etc.. 

Whatever.

Can I change it? Nope. 

So am I going to waste energy worrying about it? Nope.

Had I made any attempt or plans at heading outside the UK this year for a trip? Of course bloody not. Why would you?

If this is the negative side to my 90+ year old but still fully independent grandparents getting some normality back beyond their back garden, and it means I can stop worrying about mum and dad in their 60s then so be it.

It wasn't my main point.....but it is still a point, she is effectively saying if you use 'common sense its okay to break the rules'......not sure this defense/approach would/has been be deemed acceptable for others in society

parlez vous agit prop?

This is total nonsense. Many, myself included, have been working on site throughout the entire duration of the pandemic (no cases, no deaths at my place of work). The danger is far and away for the old and health compromised. Once they are vaccinated there is very little need for extreme measures such as full vaccination or forced closure. I urge you to hold pushing for potentially needless and damaging measures before we have a good picture of what things look like after voluntary vaccination is complete or near complete. 

As it stands the government are not saying no access to restaurants, pubs, gyms etc without vaccine certification. This is quite right and likely will not change. It'll end up being like the lockdown guidance, ultimately not enforceable but ramp up the peer pressure to maximise compliance.

How about,

Virus discriminates against the old, so vaccinate the old. Move on with life.

rather than

Waste time/money/resources vaccinating every last soul, government interfering where it shouldn't and violating peoples trust and liberties.

All young adults I chat with don’t really care. Whether that’s naive ignorance or they simply don’t give a hoot who knows, but in these threads it appear to me that there is far too much assumption about what other folk think. 

So basically what you're saying is that we should be getting the old folks to work in shops, factories, meat packing plants, call centres etc while the young and unvaccinated drink beers in the park?

Seriously, though - I don't assume much competence from this government, but I can't imagine them going for a system where young folk are still cooped up and not allowed to socialize while their parents' generation whoop it up. One of the things that I've found cheering about the vaccine rollout has been the sense that we're going to get out of this collectively, so be good, wait your turn for the vaccine and then we'll all be allowed out to play once it's safe. Suddenly making vaccination into a route to individual freedom rather than collective safety seems like a very quick way to blow that away.

What do you suggest?

It's all well and good moaning, but what's you solution? Make the virus as bad for young people as old and then vaccinate everyone the same?

If we don't manage to vaccinate everyone until the end of the year, it's STILL only another 9 months!!

Is that really so bad you want to stop everyone doing everything until then?

Sometimes life isn't fair, sometimes it a bit shit, sometimes people die and others don't!!

unfortunately the lesson of Austerity is that while for a time "We are all in this Together" might have been somewhat true we "did not get out of this Together" and some of us did not get out of Austerity at all, ever.  To hear people coming out with generational tosh like the OP  grinds my goats

intentional or not it is part of the "Divide and Conquer" effect that keeps them racin' toffs in charge

Yes because thats the solution isnt it instead of, ohhh, how about continuing to treat everyone equally regardless of the personal risk? You know the way it has been for the past year?

Cool so the oldies can wait then.

Its about the older generation showing some gratitude and respect to those who despite minimal personal risk have had their lives restricted.

They have been privileged by being vaccinated first to protect their lives not so they can get back to their lifestyle whilst everyone else watches.

Its pretty amazing how suddenly restart the economy and lets get on with things becomes a priority for those who are starting to feel safe. Lucky for them everyone else didnt share the same I am alright jack attitude.

The only thing I care about is what colour this vaccine passport will be. 

it was youngish adults I saw drinking at a barbecue on Ullswater last week.  I didn't hear an age survey for the many campers from outside the area that Cumbria police caught and fined over the preceding weekend but it looks as if many people other than the old are already resuming their lifestyle.

At last some sense!

Sort of sad and ironic to read the "I'm out" thread and this one together really. 

Tough times for everyone and with us all locked up to some degree I suppose its not surprising that we all default to how this wacky world looks through own own eyes.

Discrimination is a big devicisive word, but stopping for a mo it isn't that hard to see how even more unfair this world might feel by the summer?

The younger generations have endured much the same as everyone, ok some smaller groups have had it worse, eg those shielding,  but on the whole we have all been in the same boat. 

Now things improve, but yet the generation with the highest expectations,  who's life experience hasn't yet ground that down are told to sit tight while us oldies head to the Costa del whatever?

Ironically again thats the same younger generation who have been affected by the covid restrictions yet would not be so affected directly by catching the disease itself. Sweepingly over simple statement,  but please consider the sentiment.

That same young generation which not too many years ago would have been sent off to die in huge numbers in a foreign field for the wider good, of everyone,  but especially the older generations at home?

What's the answer? No idea.

Is it fair? No, but it probably can't be either. 

I do try to stop to see what this world can look like from the path others are treading, but I am usually pretty rubbish at it.

I somehow can’t imagine groups of over 80’s getting together in an old warehouse for a rave, can you?

perhaps they’ve spoken to a neighbour without doing exercise or they may have received a visit from a family member, heaven forbid.

my wife visited her mother (86) three weeks after her mother had been vaccinated. She sat in the garden whilst her mother sat in the house. Rules broken because her mother lives with her son and is in his bubble not ours. Harm caused?  None. Benefits gained by both parties? Hugh.

Can we also add the fact that the it was the thickies in the older age bracket that inflicted brexit on the young, too? Just to really win them over, show how much they care about the future. Ah yeah, let's bring in climate change too.

From the Greatest Generation it was something of a step down in quality, wasn't it?

Don't forget the housing bubble they've inflated as well

I suspect that Gen Z will look upon us with the same contempt. 

Most of the data that I've seen suggest that infection rates aren't much higher in young adults than in any other working-age age group, and the differences are likely accounted for by the fact that young folk are more likely to live in shared houses, work in customer-facing jobs and depend on public transport. So if all of them, and not just a small but visible minority of them, have been out raving all year, they've been doing it in a commendably covid-safe way!

They already do, although the issues are somewhat more minor - laugh/cry emoji overuse, skinny jeans, side partings and "words" such as "doggo" and "adulting" are their irks I believe. 

Yours sincerely, 

A millennial 

In this particular case I think the starting point would be to stick with the we are all in it together approach. Its bad enough when someone who is young and low risk choses the I am ok so why worry approach but, in my opinion, rather worse when someone who has benefited most and been prioritised first for protection adopts the same position the minute they feel safe.

We may not know until years from now but the latter risks lots of long term covid so it may not be a waste of time/money/resources to offer vaccination to entire population or all adults. 

Fag packet calculation based on numbers from memory:
Priority groups 1-9 chosen because these were 99% of deaths in first wave.
20% of population exposed to Covid so far.

If a further 80% of population infected we can expect 4 times as many deaths in the future - about 500,000.
But a vaccination of priority groups 1-9 reduces deaths by 99% so 500,000 becomes 5000 for deaths outside of priority groups 1-9. 

Further vaccination (all adults or whole population) saves 5000 lives amongst under fifties with no known risk factors (i.e. not in priority groups 1-9). Also an uncertain multiple of that for long Covid as yet undiscovered or emerging complications such as possible early onset dementia.

More realistically assuming vaccine effectiveness and/or uptake in groups 1-9 is 90% rather than 100% then achieving herd immunity by vaccinating beyond groups 1-9 saves a further 50,000 in groups 1-9.

Avoiding an additional 5,000-50,000 deaths in 2021 might be good for economic confidence.  

Waste of time/money/resources? Don't know.

Probably not widespread, but perhaps it should be? I've a couple of friends (early 60's) who got vaccinated early on due to being volunteers. They are now working in school until Easter covering for younger, but vulnerable staff who haven't been vaccinated/only vaccinated last week. I'm off down the park for a beer with them now

I'm sure most of us have bent if not broken rules, each with our own justifications at some point during this epidemic.

Is advocating approach that in a broadcast interview sensible... no.

jk

but who has?  Show me the masses?

the well off of all ages do as they like regardless, no change there from normal

I agree with the start of your post. As you say it is a generalisation, but voting at the last election was more along age/education ground rather than class. There is still a small minority of very wealthy people but more and more for most wealth seems to be divided unequally by age.

I worry this is more likely than most people think. I accept Mick's point that our views are shaped by people we know and that many of my former pupils won't be worrying about it (but we have said before they are often "easily led"). I see a massive difference between my friends (own their own house, kids just left home) currently not paying 40% tax and able to draw (in many cases 100,000's) it tax free in a few years time. On the other hand most of the ex pupils I still have correspondence with are at or just left Uni. Many of them are more than a little unhappy and IMO have fairly extreme views on how things need to change.  With the FPTP system you don't need much of change in the % of votes to make a massive difference. As currently the government (IMO extreme in the opposite direction) rely heavily on pensioners who didn't go to University. The older generation seem quite keen to point out that the under 30's didn't vote, that might change. They also need to be wary that secondary school numbers have/are increasing by 20% over about six years, so the next election might be a bit early, but 20% extra 20 year olds + 5% more voting might be significant. Also as a much higher proportion of 30 and 40 year olds went to University will they change their current vote. I'm not saying it will happen but it seems like a real possibility. 

Great....I guess everyone can start applying that approach to any future restrictions on the basis they know better/whats the harm etc........what you are effectively saying is its okay to break the rules as long as you don't consider it has an impact

Lucky for them everyone didn't share the "I can't do it so I don't want you to do it" attitude.

Why not let kids smoke and drink while we're on.

Why would you possibly want people to restrict themselves, just because you can't join in? FFS!

Is ANYONE suggesting we don't vaccinate everyone?

I'm pretty certain, they're trying to cover the most at risk first, you know the one's that might die (your mam and dad, grandparents, people you might love !! ). Protect them first, then carry on until we're all vaccinated.

Do you really think we're not going to bother with younger people?

Haven't you been jabbed yet? I was told all the passport details are on the chip they inserted with the vaccine. Along with a free year's membership of the Bill Gates Appreciation Society - bargain!

I am sure in your mind this was an amazing rejoiner.

I dont know if you have noticed but that is exactly what has been going on for a year now FFS.

The risk to me is minimal but because I am not a selfish tw*t I accept those restrictions including plenty of activities which were very low risk. Its called working together as a community. 

Now though it looks like a decent proportion of those who have benefited most and are still benefiting by being protected first have demonstrated that beyond their own narrow self interest they have no interest in making any sacrifices.

Possibly. See https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/vaccine_passport_discriminates_...

Certainly not!

Ah! I see, missed that post (thankfully), Jesus wept, WTF?

Yay

But they're missing OUT

I still don't understand how even now after a year, you can post this? Do yo  understand the more virus circulating in the system, the more it mutates? One of those mutations might be that it'll affect younger people more than old people, would this make you happy?

Think of them as guinea pigs, if that helps, they're being rewarded (if that's what you think is happening) for taking the vaccine first and proving it works and is safe. ALL for you.

What? You're going to have to explain that for some of us.

How is it better that you get sick rather than vaccinated?

jk

I wouldnt go that far. Some of them do have their retirement homes in those countries as well as their grandchildren who they may want to visit. 

Not yet. Should have my first one by the time the pubs open in April though. Wife was done in January. 

I do understand that but thanks for the condescending attitude. To return the favour you are the one who is suggesting a strategy that would increase the possibility of a vaccine resistant strain but hey ho. I guess it hasnt been a year so you wont have learnt that lesson yet.

However you win.  Lets let the oldies do what they like now they feel safe and leave the young and fit locked up. I cant see any possibility of something going wrong with that genius plan.

You misunderstand. The problem is that offering a free vaccination, which can protect you from sickness as well as contributing to the control of a deadly virus that will destroy society for everyone left unchecked, is "government interfering where it shouldn't and violating peoples trust and liberties". 

Let's keep the role of government limited as it should be: to accept bungs from corporations so that their lives can be made easier. No involvement in improving the lives of individuals, that's a violation of trust and liberty. 

My mistake, was thinking with the wrong hat on. Obvious now you point it out.

jk

Indeed. Remember the Great Barrington Declaration? Shield the vulnerable so the rest can carry on as normal. That didn’t wash on here, rightly or wrongly. So by the same measure the reversal should not wash either. The economic outlook of the young must be protected in the same manner that the elderly health was protected by all. If hospitality etc is to reopen, it is to everyone at once. Not only to those who have befitted so much from others sacrifice already. Vaccine passports will do nothing but create a two tier society and that is quite frankly, abhorrent.

The problem with the Shite Barrington Defecation was that there was no method of protecting the vulnerable - if it could have worked, then maybe (given the attitude of many of those whose bacon has been saved) it would have been a good idea. To make it work, you'd have to do something like fence off East Anglia and pen them all in. 

Sorry East Anglia, the seed has been more than planted for next time.

Walk me through the logic, I'm struggling.

Like shielding did?

To be honest I don't see it happening domestically, there's no point, at the rate we're going the vaccine will be universally available by the time the likes of festivals and clubs which pose the highest covid risk and would stand to benefit most from passporting re-open. I think it's an inevitability for most international travel in the next few years, something we have little control over (outbound) but I'm struggling to get aerated about not being front of the relatively short queue.

jk

I'm going to both totally disagree with how you reached your conclusion and totally agree with your conclusion, so I hope you'll bear with me...

It didn't cut it with many posters on here because they could see the premise it was built on - "shield the vulnerable" - was inherently flawed because of the scientific and technical challenges posed by the virus.  It was nonsense masquerading as a solution.  What they proposed was simply not possible. As a society we went out of our way to shield the vulnerable.  It wasn't enough.  It's not like there was much left where we could have tried harder, and what was achieved fell far short of what was required to prevent lot of people - older and younger - being hospitalised and taking us to the brink of healthcare collapse. That was what happened without ever allowing cases to run as uncontrolled as Barrington proposed.  

https://www.covidfaq.co

https://www.covidfaq.co/Claim-The-Great-Barrington-Declaration-gives-a-good...

We were not directly protecting the health of the elderly, we were protecting universal healthcare for all.  That is the principle on which I opposed Barrington - their suggestions would not protect universal healthcare for all.  That was and remains the core motivation IMO.  Because people of all ages need access to healthcare, all the time.  Preserving universal healthcare is my motivation for objecting to vaccine passports in the limited period of time before everyone has had a chance to become fully vaccinated - see my next paragraph.  The question changes significantly in the future when it comes to those who are unable to be vaccinated (they should not be discriminated agains) and those who choose not to be (what is appropriate here depends on where we end up, currently uncertain).

I agree with you here.  I think there is great scientific risk in opening up too much before vaccination is complete, both directly through no vaccine being 100% effective, and indirectly through creating a toxic social environment that destroys the good faith of the younger people to buying in to restrictions for a little while longer.  And, if we all commit to them, it there's every reason to hope it will only be for a little while longer.

Shielding didn’t create a two tier society. It was in their own interest to do so and those shielding have been economically supported on the whole.. yes obviously a few have slipped through the net, I know of a couple myself. With furlough and SEISS ending the young unvaccinated would face being stopped from going to work, and have their support withdrawn too. It also serves them no purpose to remain at home if they’re not vulnerable. 

I’m glad we agree it probably won’t happen I accept that it may well be likely for international travel but as has been said, that’s not necessarily in our hands in any case.

Good points well made, thank you. 

Do you honestly think that the French are going to have enough of their OWN population vaccinated before Christmas to risk allowing any potentially virus-carrying foreigners* in that could start a new phase of infections.

(* Remember we aren't in the EU any more !!!)

I doubt that anyone who doesn't have very good reason will be allowed into France from the UK this year.

I think you'll find they're cruising around this country, and NOT landing anywhere.

Now I have never considered a cruise in the first place - far too boring. But one without any landings to see new places - if you want to go on one you're welcome mate !

.... It wouldn't be ok if we said that only men, or white people could go to the pub without restrictions (substitute whatever bit of normal life you like here), it's also not ok to say that only people who have got the vaccine beacuse they are are old or of otherwise poor health can return to normal life while other people are under continuing restrictions simply because they are young/ healthy.

If any business is able to open to people who are SAFE, in order to actually continue in business rather than closing down, then why not. Or would you prefer said business to close down ?

Similarly if a business refused entry to potentially infectious customers, then what's wrong with that - might persuade some of these "never- vaccers" to get vaccinated.

If we wait until every single person over 18 is vaccinated, then we'll never get the country open for business and enjoyment again, because there'll always be a new tranche of people having their 18th birthday each week.

Recent mutations are more dangerous to young people.  If you just vaccinate the vulnerable, old etc. the only people the virus can infect are young healthy people and natural selection will ensure that the next 'flavour' will be need to be able of affecting that group (as well as being ultra lethal to the old etc.).  It has to be so - that is what needs to occur for the virus to thrive.  Affect what it can, and with restrictions lifted you have a large population mixing in such a way that such a mutation will inevitably occue, and quickly too.

SO what the 'COVID libertarians' are suggesting, vaccinate the old and let everyone free will inevitably cause a new more dangerous variation to appear, and the end result will be a massive lockdown till new vaccines are created.

As this is entirely predictable, you won't get away with blaming nature for this.  It will entirely be the fault of a group of people such as the OP.  Go look at recent events in Manaus as an example

I don't think that you should be locked up until everyone's jabbed, as we do want the economy up and running as quick as is safe.

But, can you see any problems with allowing the old and vaccinated to do as they please when restrictions still apply to those who haven't had the jab yet? Or do you think, "I'm alright Jack, that'll do nicely"? Have you got any suggestions as to how to mitigate any consequences you might be able to foresee with lifting restrictions for the vaccinated first?

You forgot the "privilege" that those of us over 65 have had of dropping dead if we caught Covid.

Now vaccination is making the likelihood of us "oldies" dropping dead less likely, but it doesn't mean we're immune - we can still catch it, we can still suffer from it, we can still have "long Covid"; so we're still in the situation of needing to be bl00dy careful until all you "youngsters" have been vaccinated as well, in order to reduce (NOT totally eliminate) the likelihood of you "youngsters" infecting anyone else.

No I am not. Hence why I am happy that the vulnerable are protected first.

What I am somewhat less happy about is some of them turning around and demanding that the restrictions on them are lifted once they have been vaccinated whilst the majority of people havent been.

Your other points reinforce why this would be a bad idea.

What about all the "thickies" (your term, not mine) in the younger generation that didn't bother to vote, but are now moaning they didn't get the result they wanted ?

As for climate change and being green - which generation has flooded the world with plastic and abused the earth's resources ?

My generation recycled milk bottles, most carry-out beer was in (recyclable) bottles not cans. Designer water hadn't been invented. Fish and Chips was sold in unused newspaper rather than polystyrene containers. Children were WALKED to school, not driven there. Offices, Shops and private cars didn't have air conditioning with all the energy waste and gases involved.

I could go on, but generally the world has become far less green in recent times than it was when I was young.

I don't think a temporary situation based on actual risk is discrimination.  

I appreciate your points about young people paying the price, but older people may not get another summer to go on holiday.  

My parents haven't seen their grandchild in France for over a year now.  Would you really begrudge them the chance to fly out after their second vaccine has taken effect if they can?  I honestly don't know how long they will remain in good enough health to visit her.  

Err, certainly yours, on all accounts. We are buying what you are selling us, we didn't ask for milk and fish&chips to be sold in plastic containers. You are the generation that owns both the power structure that pushed those changes and the means of production that made those changes, so spare me.

Try and think sensibly about it. If they knew the result they wanted, they'd have voted, right? Do you really think that people were actively anti-brexit but didn't vote? Why do you think that?

It would have been better if more people were sufficiently engaged to overcome the tide of shitness from the codgers, but still, the people responsible for brexit are the people who brought it about. That's the pro-brexit politicians and voters. That's not a fact that can be deflected by taking a swipe at the young. 

The ones who've voted for the policies that have allowed this to continue when we all knew the consequences are the most to blame. So that'll be your generation mostly, won't it. Who's done the most consumption, who's run the industries that service that consumption? That'll be you lot again.

I'm absolutely amazed that you want to argue that someone else is always to blame for the utter pigsty that's been made of this planet and this country. Why can't you find the humility to admit that people of your age have f*cked up the world for the younger generations: it's just an obvious statement of fact. You don't have the glory of fighting for our freedoms, all you've got to offer your grandchildren is a poisoned shithole of a planet and a lack of economic opportunity for the future.

My generation (gen x) I see as being the apathetic ones who haven't so much driven the destruction of the planet, but who've failed to get started addressing it. I'm not going to start casting aspersions on those growing up today who've got to deal with the shit they're left with through no fault of their own, and I'm not going to make out that my saintly generation aren't also fully culpable for the shit state of the world. 

Were, were, were. Are you dead already? Did you stop driving and eating and drinking milk when you got to 60? You're the one's with most cars! You're the ones spending the most on food! I can't follow the logic you're attempting to use to deny any responsibility for the shit you've been fully involved in for 50-odd years of making choices.

Well then I can argue that I'm morally superior to my hypothetical grandchildren because I didn't spend my money on hoverboards and sex robots. Why? Because they didn't exist! You're trying to take credit for "being green" as if it was a choice, it's a ridiculous argument. You just used whatever was around, whether that was reused milk bottles when you were young, or tetrapacks and plastic now you're old. You've got no grounds to claim superiority over the generations you've left to clear up the shitheap after you've buggered off.

I really don't think there is any point in engaging with this agent provocateur stuff and prolonging the arguments that are propagating this poisonous stuff.  There are some very toxic ideas circulating that have nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with dividing and polarizing society like Dominic Cummings Vote Leave campaign triumphing by spreading poison about the EU.  You really have to question the motives of people spreading this OODA loop stuff

You used to be a poster I read with interest but I wonder if someone has got to you lately or stolen your user - if not then it might be helpful to see someone if things are getting to you.  I know from personal experience how bad things can seem when help is needed

I'm actually in quite a good mood today thanks. But another thing has been added to my list of stuff people say that I find absolutely infuriating. As well as "the politics of envy" and some other things, "the baby boomers are morally superior to the young" is just always going to make me see red. I can barely express just how annoying I find it, but I've had a go.

Listen to BBC Radio 4 News 1805-1808 for estimates of consequences of releasing restrictions.

Looks like they expect 30,000 further deaths but 100,000 if it goes badly.

The pressure won't be off the NHS for a while.

I guess proportionally speaking, it's less of a sacrifice to not go abroad while younger because one has more time left, than when one is older and greyer?

In the scheme of things it's not that bad, can't people be kinda stoical about this sort of thing?

Just my 2p's worth...

You've said this or very similar in three or four posts in this thread now. But I don't think you've provided any evidence. I'll have had my second vaccine in another month or so, but I'm expecting to be required to follow the same rules as everyone else, right through till this is over. 

Martin

You seem to be out of step with the majority of the population who think vaccine passports should be issued.

https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2021/03/majority-of-britons-think-you-sho...

Personally I think you're looking at things the wrong way round. People, whether through age or health condition who have been vaccinated would be given permission to go to the pub or the cinema. Its not a matter of discriminating against anyone.

As regards foreign holidays this summer, the matter will not be one for the UK to have a choice on. Countries are already saying that you can visit them on holiday provided you can show proof of vaccination. Do you honestly expect that the UK government will refuse to issue some kind of certificate to *stop* vaccinated people going on holiday? Now that really would be unfair.

Get a grip.  We are talking about people over 80 years old here. 

The age breakdown is interesting.

45% of 18-24 yo either 'Strongly support' the idea or 'somewhat support' it

48% for 25/49 yo,

63% for 50-64, and

75% for 65+

I'm sure the correlation between those approving of the idea and those that have been offered, or are imminently about to be offered a vaccine, is entirely coincidental.

It also does not look at all like 65 yo+ people and to an extent those 50+ (likely the older in the group tipping the scales) are just giving a nice big f*ck you to the younger generations.

Hey ho

Edit: The breakdown at the 18-24 bracket is 18% strongly support, and 27% somewhat support. At the 65+ bracket that goes to 39% and 37%...

Sorry I forgot some people had difficulty with the concept of "some" meaning not all. I will try and get the tw*ts I know to sign up and confirm but I cant guarantee it.

Leaving that aside thanks for not displaying the same attitude as some of those I know.

I think your post back at 12.58 did suggest that you were criticising oldies as a whole, not just some of us. I then read down the thread and didn't registered that you had qualified similar comments with "some" or "a proportion of" later on. So apologies for that.

There's a lot of "oldie-bashing" going on on UKC currently. It can be a bit tiresome. Another poster reminded us in this thread that "thick oldies" landed the younger generation with Brexit. Yes, opinion polls do suggest that less well educated and older voters favoured Brexit, but there's a lot of generalisation going on here too. I only qualify as one of "thick", "oldie" and "Brexiteer".

Martin

Your posts don't come across, that you do.

Can you explain how?

We have a limited supply of vaccine, so who do we give it to first?

You do seem to go to extremes, no one is suggesting people do what they want, in fact people who do get vaccinated are told to carry on as if they haven't, so why are you getting you knickers in a twist?

Fair point and apologies in return. I do try and caveat but dont always remember to do so. My dad for example is clear he is opposed to being allowed abroad early despite his love of holidays but sadly some other people I know arent showing the same restraint.

I sit in the middle age band so will get vaccinated midway through but the attitude of some who currently are starting to feel safe is pretty concerning. Not only does it miss the limitations of the vaccination process but it also risks completely disengaging other groups from the concept of community responsibility.

All I'm asking for is an appropriate, honest acknowledgment that the young have got saddled with the costs of the pandemic, and they weren't the ones at risk from the disease. When what I hear instead is swipes at the young for having too many holidays, and self-aggrandisement about the moral virtues of the old I want to throw up.

Politics is statistical in nature. It's wrong to call an individual a "brexit thickie" just because they're over 60 (but fine if that's what they are, obviously), but it's 100% fair game to blame the over 60s as a statistical bin for the atrocity. The appropriate response is "obviously it wasn't all of us, but yes, unfortunately people of our age bracket are responsible for that disgusting robbery of opportunity from the young, and it's shameful."

Like I said earlier, the old are the guinea pigs for the virus in many ways, they'll learn if old people can pass it on after being vaccinated, they'll learn how long the protection lasts, they'll learn all sorts of things they don't yet know, because the virus is so new.

I can't see that most older vaccinated people are expecting "normal service" to be resumed after jab two, but it's obvious on here that some people think that's what's going to happen.

Until we're all vaccinated there's always going to ba danger, and that's not just locally or UK wide but world wide. Any pockets are wells of mutation waiting to happen.

Us smart, old remainers could equally blame the indolent yoof for not putting their nintendxstationboxes down for five minutes and voting for their future...

Hardly surprising at all, in my book.

The majority of the anti-vaxxers I've come across are younger people, these are people who don't want a vaccine and therefore are dead against any form of vaccine passport.

I their case they're then going to have to choose between, having the vaccine and being able to do what they want, without any social responsibility. If passports become a thing, or course. I think for foreign travel it's probably going to happen.

Well at least you've got a sense of humour - and those that didn't vote have indeed got themselves to blame, but what do you care? They haven't taken much away from you, have they?

The anti-vaxxers won't be driving those numbers.

If someone doesn't go on holiday until next year, then there'll be no airlines to take anyone.

The magic money tree isn't going to last forever, and besides you don't want to be paying for that forever, and ALSO not be able to go on holiday, do you?

Are you sure? It's obviously won't only be them, the most vociferous anti-passport people I've come across are also the ones who don't want the vaccine. THey're also the ones who seem to think it "just the flu"

Not very scientific I know, but when you see it say it.

It matters how numerous they are, not how vociferous.

Oh! there's plenty of them as well, at least where I work, there are.

There's a massive number of AVs on our local FB page too, bat-shit-crazy doesn't cover it.

Carbon-monoxide poisoning from wearing masks, is quite possibly my favourite.

The young have definitely, measurably, empirically born more of the weight of the coronavirus, just like how the young bear the weight of most things like this (as do women bear more of the weight than men, and often ethnic minorities get hammered harder than the white british population).

I don't think vaccine passports are reallllly a good example of that mind you. Yes it is galling that older people are now keen to all get back to it before everyone gets vaccinated, but given that everyone should be getting offered a vaccine within the next few months and I very much doubt that vaccine passports will be a thing for say, going to the pub (I have been vaccinated and if I went to the pub now I would struggle to prove that... it'll take longer to sort out the vaccine ID system than it would to actually just get everyone vaccinated with one jab at least).

The real problem is the systemic issues that the younger generation will face as a result of the pandemic. Higher unemployment, less wealth, fewer buying houses etc etc etc. This was an existing problem but it will be exacerbated by this economic shock (as will inequalities in race, gender, regional ones I think will be extra hard). Vaccine passports are the least of our worries, the number of people who are out of work will.

Is there a problem where the old refuse to accept that they are demanding the young bear a heavy burden for their ongoing privileges such as triple-locked state pensions and premium care on the NHS that is costing more and more as people live longer and longer? I think it's less a sense of callous disregard as it is a sense of ignorance; most old people don't know what buying a house is like for young people, they don't know what getting a job is like now, they don't really know that pensions are worse, renting is more economically taxing etc etc etc. I think you hear the odd "kids are just lazy" from morons but largely older people just... they don't know. Cos how would they? Ignorance is not limited to them either, but I think it is what it is in this case. My Nan doesn't know what it's like to apply for a job in the 21st century; she retired nearly thirty years ago.

All of this was true before the pandemic, and will be more true afterwards. I do hope that the older generations actually take the time to listen, and really openly listen, to young people talk about the problems they face, but I do think that if they do listen, then they will not just callously ignore them. They just don't. And also there is an element of confusion; old people also live in a world which is drastically different to the world they grew up in, more so than that world was from their own grandparent's world. The pace of changed has increased. As we all get older, we all need to retain that willingness to listen (just like how we have learned more and more of late to listen to minority groups more, and listen to persecuted people more etc)

Whatever they are smoking under that mask could cause that!

Get vaccinated if you want, most people seem to want to. My concern is when we start forcing people with continuing business closures, certification requirements etc. Essentially ransoming peoples livelihoods and wellbeing for their compliance. Not on from my perspective. Can you not think of any potential downsides to this action? If not I'd be wasting both our times trying to get it across.

Are you suggesting most people in low-to-no risk groups are likely to get seriously ill and die from covid? That's not my understanding of the situation from experts, data or anecdotally.

As Jon has pointed out, this really comes down to political outlook. Your welcome to think a big and interfering state is good for everyone, especially when it gets to the level of forcing medical procedures on you and telling you where and if you're allowed to work, go shopping. Do as we say or we'll essentially cut you out from society. It's overzealous for my taste. As he nicely strawmans below:

"The problem is that offering a free vaccination, which can protect you from sickness as well as contributing to the control of a deadly virus that will destroy society for everyone left unchecked, is "government interfering where it shouldn't and violating peoples trust and liberties". "

It's not the offering a 'free' vaccination (we all know it isn't free but we can pretend if you like) it's anything beyond that I have problems with. He even states further down the young are picking up the bill for the pandemic so I don't know how he's coming to both of those conclusions simultaneously.

We have multiple vaccines, we have 90%+ voluntary uptake, we have no known vaccine defeating variants (as far as I'm aware), we have the elderly and vulnerable more or less protected. I can't justify diving headfirst into passports for daily life and granting government increasing powers over the individual, sorry for being such a heretic.

The vaccines do not offer 100% protection against serious disease and death in those vulnerable groups therefore the vaccine is not just about protecting the individual but reducing chains of transmission as much as possible to stop it reaching the vulnerable as much as possible.

Therefore those very low risk individual who are not vaccinated are increasing the chains of transmission....

Anyway watch the vaccine reluctant scramble to their GPs when they realise a foreign holiday relies on getting jabbed up.,..

Well most of the elderly I know are fully away as they talk and listen to their children and grandchildren ( its called being a family in case you did not know).There are a hell of a lot of functioning and well connected intergenerational families out there across all social divides in the UK.

Do not buy your view.

At present there is no plan to ask people who can work from home and are otherwise healthy to accept being toward the back of the queue, if there were a plan to make sure that the young people necessary to enable reopening of shops etc are vaccinated it would be a more sensible plan.

We shouldn't reopen the economy fully until the NHS can cope with the infection rate while maintaining normal service. If that means that a group of people who have had it pretty damn good for a long time need to spend another few months living with restrictions that's fine. If sections of the economy are to be opened up on the basis of a vaccine passport it should absolutely not be done until we have offered the vaccine to everyone in the adult population. If someone refuses the vaccine for anti-vax reasons they should never be issued one, if they are unable to take any of the vaccines for good medical reasons they should not be discriminated against for something beyond their control.

There are good, decent people in the older generations, I know quite a few of them, I also know a few who are selfish bastards who are quite gleeful that my generation have repeatedly watched the ladder being pulled up in front of them/ actively participate in pulling up that ladder, those agitating for the economy to reopen now that they have been vaccinated after pissing and moaning at the younger generations to protect them for the last year (while cheering on the idiots they put in parliament) are good examples of the latter.

As long as it's their choice that's no problem.

You appear to be ignoring the downsides of opening up early, running with high cases, and a larger than necessary unvaccinated population.

A partially vaccinated population provides the perfect breeding ground and evolutionary pressure for vaccine escaping variants to emerge. Opening up too much too soon, running with high cases, and a large number of unvaccinated people is how you maximise the chance of more lockdowns, more deaths and more economic damage. Your desire for a lack of state interference is the very thing that increases the chances of far greater state interference becoming necessary in the future.

The vaccines are not 100% effective and there are a number of people who are unable to be vaccinated due to health conditions, pregnancy and breastfeeding etc. These people rely on everyone else to get vaccinated for their protection. I'm far more concerned about the rights of these people and their right to return to normality than the rights of someone who wants to return to normal but doesn't want to get vaccinated.

If people want to risk their own health, that's fine by me. But failure to get vaccinated is risking the lives of other people.

I don't expect we will have government mandated vaccine passport/certificate requirements to access services anyway. Other countries will require a passport for travel, forcing our government to provide a passport. But within the UK, I expect they will leave it up to individual businesses to decide whether they require vaccines to access their services. They'll outsource any unpopularity and enforcement on to others, just like with enforcement of masks and distancing measures.

That seems to be the most likely implementation of vaccine passports.

It's not the young who are saddled, it's the young who won't inherit significant wealth from their older relatives.  It's the same sort of reasons I disagree with you about the old... many are in poverty and some who are wealthy are giving significant time and money to help reduce intergenerational inequality and a much bigger proportion would be delighted if everyone with their wealth level paid more taxes.

You are inadvertantly assisting the populist tactics of manufacturing conflict as a distraction. Progressives had a majority in the last election. If they work together and more young people vote next time this populist blight on the tory party will lose easily... the evidence of their vacuous policies will be obvious and there will be no Labour bogeyman to terrify swing voters.

The majority of older people are good and decent in my experience, even ones where my politics are very different being more right or left wing than them. People need to listen to others more and not automatically assume ill intent. If they make bad decisions about say Boris, look first at how the media portray the most incompetent, law breaking,  cronyist cabinet ever and the most one sided tory parliamentary party in modern history. Compare that coverage to Corbyn who was always a much lesser threat (he stood no chance at all of acheiving a majority).

I'm waiting to see what happens when some businesses, gym, shop or restaurant perhaps, open up for customers who have either proof of vaccination or antibodies, or a recent negative test.

Doesn't force anyone against vaccination to have one, just the inconvenience of getting a test.

I for one would be more likely to use such a business rather than one not doing so.

A lot of the the old timers did spend a lifetime paying off WW2 debt, of course.  Not my 60+ generation of course, we are just agitating to get out to party.  Hopefully at my 30 year old stepson's wedding, which will wait until all the 30 year olds there will be as vaccinated as I am.

My Nan listens to me and my siblings to an extent, who are mid 20s to very early 30s. But 1) we are not emblematic of all the problems that young people face, and 2) there is a broader social element of "listening" here, not just to people you have a personal connection to but people you don't.

It's important to be prepared to listen to the experience of people in broader society, in the news and in wider discourse, media etc. And this is something we see in society too; people who are perfectly polite and friendly to, say, gay people in their family but unwilling to accept that other gay people face discrimination in wider society. 

And also listening to just young people in your family can be counter-productive because they are not representative! If the young people in a family are doing well (perhaps all the kids bought houses in their 20s or something) then the older people in the family are like well my grandkids seem to be doing fine, what's all the fuss about?

You can't just be looking to people in your immediate family and friend group to be getting a sense of what the wider problems are to the groups that they represent. That's just not how it works. You need to be looking at broader trends. More broadly; fewer young people are getting to buy their own homes. Fewer young people have decent prospects for retirement. Almost none of them have the prospects for retirement their grandparents and even their parents have. Young people are taking on more debt due to higher education, and more young people are unemployed due to the pandemic. So if you are my Nan and saying well all my four grandkids have a job, and two own their own homes, and one has a very good civil service pension (not me, more's the pity) then she would in fact get a very different idea of what life is like for people in their 20s and early 30s now if she thought that was representative.

Edit: And I would say, we also have to be careful it doesn't go the other way. A lot of young people right now see older people as sneering boomers who have paid of their mortgage, have gold-plated pensions, went to uni for free, voted for Brexit, are right wing daily mail readers, probably at least a bit racist, sexist etc etc etc. And that isn't really fair. Not only does it ignore how a lot of older people aren't that (and also that often this view is of people in their 60s... not people in their 80s!), but it also ignores that a lot of older people really struggle with loneliness, that there is a massive care crisis, that older people are vulnerable to a lot of things, that a lot of old people are financially in very poor shape and taken advantage of.

But if we want to look at the Coronavirus pandemic... I think it shows that society on the whole was prepared to make a lot of sacrifices to try to protect these older people not just from the pandemic but from other things too. We had a lot of volunteers calling older people to stay in contact. We had a lot of volunteers delivering them food etc. I think there has been a big effort and sacrifice to protect these vulnerable people and rightfully so. And the younger you are, the more you will bear the economic burden of that (and if you are a woman, and not white etc etc etc).

So I think we do have a problem of ignorance and antagonism that goes both ways, but we have also not seen the impact go both ways with the Rona.

That's all true, the ones who genuinely wield the attitude of "I'm alright Jack" are a minority, I unfortunately have extensive experience of living with one individual who fits the stereotype nearly perfectly, it has somewhat coloured my view of right wing talking points.

The good side of people being let out to fly off abroad is that it might reduce the summer horror for those of us Blighty bound ...I haven't commented on the substantive OP but my own feeling of any kind of "passport" before everyone has been offered the vaccine is that it is simply an abhorrent idea.  By al means let people's choice determine whether they gain a passport but not their age, wealth or access to smartphone technology.  Vaccinate everyone who wants it and then provide an egalitarian way of proving you've had it.

And everyone, please stop all of this intergenerational victimisation rot - it only favours those whose ruling choices need to be forgotten for the bad public policy choices they have made.

I agree, but think peoples interpretation of significant is important. Millions, yes, but a few hundred thousand is going to disappear in a few generations if the trends in wages, house prices and pensions continue for another 30+ years.

Except in the number of deaths maybe, but, well you know, they were on the way out anyway, eh?

125,000 as of yesterday, I think they and their families have borne more weight than many.

WTF? Poor ass young people

I'm old enough to have/had relatives (eg both parents) who lived through the Second World War and had it very tough indeed. In Liverpool where I grew up at first the signs of this were everywhere - derelict houses made great adventure playing grounds. No-one young blamed the previous generations for bringing on that war and 'wasting' all that money on tanks, planes and bullets. People had to work very hard to pay off that debt and improve their lives (was it 2008 when we officially cleared that one?). I can't think of anyone who actively resented this. It just had to be got on with. I can recall a sense of optimism and improvement growing up as a young child in the sixties - rose-tinted spectacles perhaps, given Vietnam and the turmoil of societal shifts. My memories of the seventies were of a growing sense of decline and decay and then the eighties adding to further social tension and divides in terms of haves and have-nots. It used to really hit home to me on visits to southern England back then how prosperous and different much of the country was to my own patch of the north. Today's young people are no different to previous generations - in many respects they are being dealt a poor hand but they have to deal with it in just the same way all previous generations have had to. Not by demonising 'old people' but by hard work and initiative. I currently work with quite a mixed bunch of colleagues aged from 18 to 80+ and some of the 'oldies' have been on site right through the pandemic just trying to get by without bearing grudges or carting a big chip around about who to blame for the current mess the country faces.

Sorry, I should say; have born more of the economic weight, and will bear more of the longer term economic fallout.

Agree with that.  For folks info:

12.4 million pensioners of which 1.6 million live in poverty (Age UK).  

Average income is about £15k per person, about 20% have an income of about £50k per annum

My view:  get the cash off this 20% and lets not go down yet another divide and rule route.

Edit:  thats 20% of couples have £50k income, and my comment should read 'get the cash off the 20% wealthiest across general population, inc pensioners

^ This. People are fighting because they perceive someone has got a few more crumbs than them, whilst hundreds of millions are continually vanishing into the pockets of the already obscenely wealthy.

Absolutely. To make a sweeping generalisation, the health impacts of covid have been worse for the older generations. The economic impact has and will continue to be worse for the younger generations. But there are many outliers with in each generation.

But arguing over who has been impacted the most achieves nothing and deflects from the awful government response which has increased the severity of the health and economic impact.

By thickies in the older age bracket, do you mean people who do not agree with your politics views or something else?

State Pension is (I think) £9110 p.a, which means we're looking at around £6k in personal pensions (roughly). Hardly the huge 'gold plated' pensions that apparently every old crumbly has, according to UKC.

Many people don't make £50k p.a. at any point in their working lives. Pensioners on that sort of income should certainly be paying NIC, (or maybe roll NIC into general income tax). I'd go so far as to say putting an additional level of tax on anyone earning over the national median income, be they working or a pensioner, would be a fair way of sharing the pain.

My grandparents would listen to me across the generational divide, then tell me 'tha dun know tha born' and mentioned once that I probably shouldn't bring 'a coloured girl' home. I love them very very much, but they do not give one crap about our generation, and in fact want to see this 'full of themselves bunch of layabouts' suffer, as well as anyone in a minority group.

Just for a bit of perspective

As much as the state pension isn't, the real difference is in occupational pensions.

Occupational pensions that let generations past retire have become far worse, largely due to the move from final salary to money purchase. 

If a 25 year old now put the same proportion of their income into their MP pension as their grandparents paid into their final salary pension, they wouldn't just retire at a later date, it's quite possible that they'll never retire.

Sorry?

You're angry at the older generation because interest rates are much lower now than they were thirty years ago?

I've looked through this whole thread and one thing that's totally lacking is EVIDENCE.

People have made all sorts of allegations about how "oldies" are or want to behave but they basically all boil down to anecdotal stuff. Well all that helps prove is that there are idiots and selfish people in every generation. There will be some "oldies" who break the rules and others who follow them, just as in every generation.

The only link that might have been to evidence was a Guardian article about the number of over 80's who'd broken lockdown regulations. But that article was fundamentally flawed because it did not mention any control group; i.e. neither the number of over 80's who'd broken lockdown regs BEFORE being vaccinated nor the number of vaccinated UNDER 80's who'd broken lockdown.

The reported over 80's lockdown breaking behaviour might be exactly the same as every other "group" in the country - we don't know.

I've been keen to re-open since day one, I've waited patiently to compromise with society at large and can settle for the roadmap as it is. Are you saying the roadmap is opening too early? Can you give an example of what you consider a high quantity of cases for reference?

Even with a mandated vaccination program to give you that extra 2-5% population uptake you'll still have some percentage unvaccinated. If the voluntary uptake was 20-49% I'd understand but applying unprecedented measures, which in my opinion will have negative repercussions for that extra single digit percentage doesn't seem justified or proportionate. Do we have evidence of vaccine beating variants yet or any data that would help someone to determine the likelihood of that occurring with the predicted 90%+ voluntary uptake? Or is it like it or lump it? 

The international bill of rights does not have a "The right to be theoretically 10% more protect from disease by forcing others en masse to have vaccinations against their own will" line. It does however have:

The right to equality and freedom from discrimination.

The right to life, liberty, and personal security.

Freedom from torture and degrading treatment.

The right to equality before the law.

The right to a fair trial.

The right to privacy.

Freedom of belief and religion.

Freedom of opinion.

So discriminating based on someone's private (for now) medical choices based off of their beliefs and opinions and either degrading them by exclusion, removing their livelihood or forcing a vaccine on them doesn't seem to jibe with the vibe does it? The right to life is about the only point you could make, but you'd create a world with such high demands for others safety that it would be un-recognisable and not worth living in IMO.

I don't expect so either, and I think that is very much for the best. I do think there will be legal issues with businesses discriminating against individuals on a medical basis, though I doubt that sort of thing will occur outside of really sensitive areas eg. new staff at care homes. By the time we're that far down the line we'll likely have far reduced cases/deaths and more normality to occupy us rather than being pre-occupied with this one topic.

Plastic containers etc. cost money. The only reasons people spend more money on a product are H&S or customer demand.

Which age group is demanding H&S, which age group is the customer.

As for designer water in separate 500ml bottles every time you want a drink !!!

Every recession has more long term impact on the young, simply because the impact of every recession lasts for ages - even if we can't measure it (hidden by subsequent recessions) - and the young are obviously around for longer to feel that impact.

But, every economic upturn also has more long term impact on the young, for exactly the same reasons.

In economic terms the Covid Pandemic is just a recession, what makes it different is that people easily see the immediate cause of the recession, i.e. lockdowns/restrictions. And it's also easy to see the immediate beneficiaries of the lockdown, i.e. "oldies" surviving.

What so many are missing is that the real cause of the recession is Covid and how its been handled, and the primary beneficiary is society as a whole (because it hasn't collapsed into an even worse economic meltdown).

All this inter-generational stuff is a red-herring, however where people like Jon are correct (I don't always agree with him) are that those with the most means should contribute the most towards helping us recover from this recession, regardless of whether they're currently working generation or living off previously earned wealth (i.e. pensions or equivalent).

Well except the UN Charter also says:- "(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

Plastic containers are *cheaper* than glass. Glass is reusable but requires handling. This was done for one reason: Profit.

We are demanding more H&S? Really? Which millenials have you heard demanding more H&S?

Designer water bottles, yeah, this is a market literally created by marketting. By the companies that you lot have founded or are invested in, directly or via your pension funds.

All in all, this is such utter bullshit that I will agree with Jon, it makes me see red. I don't have a problem with older people at all but I *do* have a problem with people spouting the sort of utter drivel you just came up with.

This is along the same lines of calling us millenials names for 20 sodding years, and as soon as us and Gen Z start calling you out as boomers, all of a sudden it's ageist and not appropriate. You know what? It was ageist and not appropriate to blame millenials for every failed investment you made too.

Smoking is a choice some people have made. However it is not a right for smokers to impose their activity (exhaled smoke) on others - because that affects the health (and indeed life) of others. Something which the young of this country have championed more than the old.

Not being vaccinated is effectively no different to smoking in this respect. The exhalation of breath into the air which contains the Covid virus (as opposed to tobacco smoke and nicotine) which then goes directly to the air that someone else breathes in IS a direct medical problem for others. Why then do the young feel this aspect of affecting others health is less worthy.

Another point - those who are now young will (hopefully) get older. They may indeed also acquire problems which make them selves more at risk. When that time comes will those who decry vaccination suddenly change their minds.

What you said.

Just to cheer everyone up.

Remember Covid is only the warm up act for global warming, if you think this is shit, and it's impacting you financially wait till that really starts to hit the world.

We're currently doing next to FA towards fixing it, and staying in doors for a few months won't make it go a away, there will be no vaccine to combat it either.

I suppose we will all be in that together, young and old, but I dare say there be some that will find an angle to whinge at how easy one side has it over the other.

Generalise much?

I don't even drink bolted water, when I look around the supermarket it's the younger people buying most of that. Probably the best drinking water in the world and people are buying stuff shipped around the world, for no reason.

Remember it people buying shit, that keeps it viable no who invested in it or founded them.

No, not generalising at all. We didn't wake up one morning and go "would it not be great if we had a 500mL single use plastic water bottle with Fancy Water written on it" and petitioned companies to make it. Companies, run by *that* generation, saw a drop in their sales of water and they decided to figure out how to make it sexy enough to sell again. Do you reckon it's our fault that said companies are exporting tonnes of plastic bottles of water to Africa too, where it cannot even be recycled or disposed of properly? I can also tell you now that it is not the millennials that I see with 12 packs of 2L bottles of water in their trollies at the super market. Was this forced on people by us H&S conscious millennials too, and back in your day tap water purchased at the supermarket was in glass bottles?

What a complete and utter load of crap. It took *years* of petitioning from our generation and then gen Z for companies with boards predominantly populated with boomers to *consider* cutting down plastics use, after aeons of them lobbying government to ensure no legislation is ever passed that would affect their bottom line. It took the social media revolution to cause widespread negative press for anything to be done.

Deflection after deflection, producing environmentally disastrous products, marketing them at teenagers with their favourite celebrities, telling them that they are good for them, and then blaming them for falling for it. Enough is enough.

And, I think from bit of research,  if you own you own home (nearly 70% of pensioners currently) and get a basic state pension you are not in poverty. That means nearly half the pensioners renting are in poverty. Equally concerning about 4 million kids are living in poverty.

I think there is a big difference between the disposable income of a retired home owning couple with an income of 50k compared to a young family, mortgage/rent, kids, pension contributions etc. They might have point that they have already paid tax, but in the current circumstances, I feel they should be paying more. 

Well they are probably saving up for their care costs so as not to burden the younger generation..........or helping their families with costs ( very common) etc.

There is no " perfect" solution.Feeling they should be paying more is not really  a practical taxable solultion generating much tax income.Put it this way its not  going to fill the shortfall.Might put a a couple of billion in, but that is about it.But if you think its going to generate say £30 billion, then you are going to need a rethink.

That is why its not done.Its a waste of time.

Here is a latest number for you. In 2019 ( last figures available) there were:

Out of the 474,000 pensioners with an income over £50,000, 158,000 (33 per cent) were over the age of 75 compared to 170,000 (36 per cent) being between the ages of 65 and 69.1

You can have a look at all the stats on tax information websites from the Gov.There are all sort of  numbers.

ha ha you do make me laugh, so much so it's almost a parody, nothings being FORCED on you, you have free will, you and your mates can CHOOSE not to buy any shite you don't think worthy of buying.

You can, and I know this for certain, because it's something I do, refill a tonic water bottle (after you've used the contents for your evening G&T) out of a tap, in your house.

This can be done many times saving the planet from extra plastic bottle being needed, and the need to transport water from anywhere!! It really is amazing.

Back in my day, much like today I manage to survive on water out of the tap, amazing.

On a serious note, we all have our choices, there are options for you to either take or refuse, you don't need to blame anyone else for your choices, they're all down to you. Sometimes in life we have to wait for things to be available for us, sometimes it's for good reason. We can't all have what we want when we want it.

Like refusing to have a vaccine, no one is making people have them, but each choice we make through life has consequences, choosing not to have a vaccine, might mean another country won't let you in, or a business might decide you pose too much of a risk.

You may be too young to remember the 1990s when there was a huge cull of people in their 50s chucked out from banks and all sorts of jobs - which generation chucked them out?  Or was it a "hive mind" project of the faceless generation clones of which you speak.  Through the years I've lost many jobs through being made redundant, groups going into receivership, the loss of Hong Kong ended a decent spell in Sheffield where I thought I'd finally found somewhere decent, and finally I was culled in my 50s and lost all heart to go on.   In between I had to get on my bike to places as far afield as Wester Ross, Kingston on Thames, Wallsend, short term sometimes - never had any security that wasn't in the end cut from me but I don't blame my parents or grandparents for that.

Are you planning to murder any of your own family or dig up their graves for what they've done to you?

I'm in my mid 60s with 2 boys at university as there was no stability in my life till I was in my 40s and even that was culled in my 50s so get stuffed with all your horrible divisive generation blame.  F*ck off - I didn't drive till my 30s and didn't go abroad till then either - financial future will be "interesting" to say the very least

Signed - Had it all of Cumbria

I agree that it's nice for many to hep out their families. Care home cost are a bit of lottery, depending on whether they are needed or not. For people in this position the financial side probably affects the kids more, will they inherit the house/savings, or not.

That's one point we can certainly agree on.

Feeling they should be paying more is not really  a practical taxable solultion generating much tax income.Put it this way its not  going to fill the shortfall.Might put a a couple of billion in, but that is about it.But if you think its going to generate say £30 billion, then you are going to need a rethink.

I suppose that is why I was thinking of a figure considerably lower than 50k. It also seems to indicate that a considerable amount of pensioners wealth is in property, 1.3 trillion, but any attempt to tax that seems even less popular.

Perhaps, but in the current climate it would be a nice gesture to the younger generations. How many people are going to have sympathy with someone on a 50k pension moaning about paying 2k more in tax? 

Will do. I was thinking more like the next 5 million pensioners paying a bit more tax. Probably along the lines of either reforming NI as others have suggested or having lower thresholds for basic and higher tax. As you say, might not be as much as I though, probably billions rather then 10's billions. It wasn't long ago when 350 million seemed like a lot of money.

edit. I'd certainly limit the 25% tax free lump sum to say 50k. what sort of lump sum does someone on a 30k pension get, never mind 50k?

It would be nice it the corporations which have businesses here were paying their taxes too, if we stopped people and businesses hiding money in offshore accounts, might also help. Many believe this is what Brexit was REALLY about since the EU are bringing laws in to make it illegal to hide money.

I'm more than willing to be paying more tax, in fact I will be due to higher corp. tax, but before we start doing over pensioners, let's make it fair, eh?

Best way out of it is to grow the economy and improve productivity.But like everything not easy to do. 

No, I'm not angry at the old. Or interest rates. That's not what I am talking about.

Pensions are worse than they were 30 years ago. Final Salary Pensions were way better than Money Purchase Pensions, but that isn't because of interest rates really, it's because Final Salary Pensions required a massive investment from employers, which is why they all went to Money Purchase, because they are way cheaper. Of course less money in means less money out.

In the 70s and 80s people would often put like, 5-6% of their income into their pension, and their employer would be putting 18-20% of their salary in on top, to pay for the Final Salary Pension Liability that would be calculated when they got to retirement or became a Deferred member. Now You are lucky if you get a match of contributions past around 7-8% of your income, and the liability is your own. 

If you are 25 now and you get auto-enrolled into your occupational pension and you put in say, 7-8% of your income and do so for the rest of your life (which is, btw, more than most people put in, most people put in less than 5%) and so does your employer (and a lot won't, cos they are not required to) and that is the entirety of your pensions planning you will struggle to live off the annuity you get after 40 years of saving, it'll be very little. Even if you've paid your mortgage off. If you haven't paid your mortgage off or god forbid you are renting, then you are f*cked.

Young people now have worse retirement savings options, worse prospects for buying their house, and paid more for their higher education if they went to uni, than their parent's generation. That's pretty empirically measurable. I am not saying "old people are sneering bastards who pulled the ladder up" but... at least in some places? Someone pulled the ladder up. And I think that a lot of older people don't realise that yeah, buying a house, paying off your student loans and retiring are harder for young people than it was for them. I don't think they know and don't care. Or at least I like to hope their don't. 

I did not blame you or your generation. fred99 blamed mine, as a certain type of person has spent the past 20 years doing, about *everything*.

TBH I don't blame any generation for the current state of affairs

Largely I blame the Tory party though

nor was I lookong for sympathy - just that we are all different and I prefer contrasting sections of society rather than generalisations about generations 

Divided we are easily ruled or manipulated

Edit: I've deleted most of my response because it was unnecessarily inflammatory. I'll leave just the part that is actually needed:

Really now? Have you seen the comment *all* of this is a response to or have you just jumped in the thread responding to a *response* without reading the original?

fred99 explicitly blamed my generation for plastic milk bottles and polystyrene fish and chips packaging and being driven to school and airconditioning. I will quote the drivel I am responding to for you:

See? See what made me go of the rails?

Sure, and I would very much agree with all of that, but there is a certain amount of cheek required for people to be blamed for getting driven to school by the ones that drove them to school.

Completely agree with that.

After a decade where virtually working age people have seen their income shrink in real terms, but some pensioners have had their comfortable or luxurious (Which's definition) retirement protected, I think it is fair that we pay a bit more tax even if it doesn't raise as much revenue as I thought it might. 

The Tory party of course are only able to knacker anything because people voted for them.  So if you don't like what they did and want to blame someone for it, those who voted Tory are pretty near the front of the queue.

Though I partially blame the Labour party for fielding a basically unelectable candidate.

Yeah I also blame Tory voters, in all honesty

I was in a final salary scheme in the 80's. Three in fact. I don't recall employers contributing that much money but I do remember companies taking pension holidays where they stopped making contributions altogether because they reckoned there was enough money in the fund. When I left my last job which had such a scheme I left with a derisory amount of cash, a few hundred pounds for seven years of contributions. It was either that or a tiny pension at 65 which would increase by a few percent a year or the rate of inflation, whichever was less. Effectively I lost the first decade of my pension contributions. That's just the way it was.

In fact a lot of schemes were structured such that the exit barriers were prohibitively high, if you had worked for a company for much of your life you couldn't afford to leave because of the hit your pension would take. I also remember being pleased at one point that my employer had decided that they would pay a pension if you retired before state retirement age.

The reason these schemes no longer exist is because interest rates are now too low to make them work and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. That is a consequence of globalisation. While you get cheap TVs and clothes your pension fund no longer returns 15% pa.

Completely agree. I don’t know why you’re getting so match flack and dislikes. 
 

There is absolutely no requirement or mandate for internal vaccine passports or compulsory vaccinations. 
 

The domestic uptake is 90%+. 
 

If it were less then there may be a discussion to be had but imposing draconian measures on people is counterproductive and ultimately will harm the vaccine rollout. 

Well I worked on final salary schemes for many years and I can tell you that a Contribution Holiday is pretty standard stuff, because the Employer Contributions are calculated based on the income of the Active Scheme Members, but they actually are not earmarked for them at all, neither are the contributions of individual members. They all go into a big scheme pot which is invested to cover the financial liabilities of the Scheme i.e. the liability to pay pensions based on the Scheme Rules.

And I can also tell you that typically speaking the contributions for an Employer were calculated at roughly 17-23% of the salaries of the employees. But even if the Scheme is unable to cover it's funds, it is in fact covered by the PPF to a minimum of 90% so it's not like individual members have any liability at all; what they are owed by the Scheme is set out clearly in the Scheme rules.

That interest rates are not what they once were is part of why companies want nothing to do with them. That they require the company to pay an extra 20% on average on top of their salary bills is another reason. And in fact I sat in a meeting with a large pharmaceutical corporation's UK branch (currently making a killing off vaccines incidentally) where they were closing their Final Salary Scheme and going to Money Purchase for exactly that reason; they wanted to cut their contributions bill in half, and they did.

It's similar in private education, many independent schools are trying to persuade/force teachers to opt out of the teachers pension scheme due to the 24% employers contribution.

I mean stupid people. This is an empirical statement, although it's hard to measure, proxies like highest qualification give a usable metric (qualifications don't measure intelligence at the level of individuals, but a population of university professors is going to be less stupid on average than a population of people with no GCSEs).

Old, stupid people were most likely to vote for Brexit. This is an empirical statement.

Every week or so, I find myself writing something like the following: 

Opinions are not all equally valid. Opinions which can be justified with arguments and evidence deserve respect, but opinions which are unjustified, or are based on mistaken beliefs or deliberate lies deserve to be ignored or ridiculed.

If you want me to justify what I'm saying with arguments and evidence, I can do. I'll have to use Google to look up some data which I don't have to hand, but I'm confident that the evidence will back me up.

Precisely. There is a movement towards laying all of the liability on individuals. So the younger generations will have less retirement security or income, and will be required to work longer to support people who retired with final salary schemes and get a triple-locked state pension as the population ages and the NHS is required to support people for far longer.

The aging society, the increased burden on the young, the increased difficulties of the young as a result of the financial crisis and pandemic, the difficulty of purchasing housing... these things are all measurable, empirical fact. But I can't blame older people for not really seeming to notice it; young people don't notice it enough to make them go and vote after all.

I'm not sure I can see how the young are not saddled with the costs of the pandemic.

The conflict is a direct response to people on UKC who:

1. Refuse to acknowledge the incontrovertible fact that pensioners pay lower taxes than the working (25% allowance and no NIC) while claiming substantial benefit (state pension even if minted). If there's one thing guaranteed to get my goat it's brazenly denying a fact that's placed directly in front of your face.

2. Take an "I'm alright Jack" approach to the problems faced by the young in the wake of the economic fall-out. Belittling the losses suffered by the young from a position of immense privilege. Students, for example are incurring huge debts to have an entirely miserable experience of online learning and no social life, when the older generation went to subsidised piss-up-party university on the back of the taxpayer, and came out with a qualification that put them way ahead in the labour market

3. Make deluded self-aggrandising moral claims of superiority, admonishing the young for taking too many holidays, seeking instant gratification, or most laughably of all being responsible for pollution and climate change (the inversion of self-awareness is just unbelievable)

It takes two to tango. I haven't got a bad word to say about anyone purely on account of their age: as I said, 

Many people of pensionable age are happy to acknowledge this, and nothing I've said should be taken as an attack on them. But what are we seeing more of, this attitude or the former described above? Scan the threads and see what you think the bulk of the attitudes on display look like.

The costs of the pandemic are going to be felt for years and years, and in spending cuts that will diminish the opportunities of the next generation. None of it is going to hit the pensioners - their relatively diminished tax contributions will not be increased, their benefits will not be cut. Those who have them now will continue to enjoy their second homes, their all inclusive holidays, their expensive cars; and they'll continue to justify it with more nauseating, self-aggrandising moralising that "they deserve it because they worked hard". And it will continue to piss me off.

Do you ever read what you post or do you just type away and hope what comes out makes sense?

What percentage of older people e.g. over 66 went to university?

Yet you state that the older generation went to piss up party university.

Once I’ve read that nonsense I just ignore everything else that you’ve wrote.

Which is a pity because some of it might be correct.

I understand that you’re angry but your ranting is predictable to the point of being tedious.

Anyway, must go and count all the money that I’ve sponged off the young.

I think when I went to uni at the end of the 70's, it was something like 7% with a slightly smaller amount going to polytechnic. So that's 80% plus who didn't get a degree.

You are correct though that for those who went it was financially cushy (for most) compared with today - a lot of that is simply because of the "drive" to get so many into uni (Tony Blair?) studying stupid subjects when so many of that cohort (and possibly today's) would have been better served by vocational study/training and apprenticeships.

Also, I wonder what proportion of pensioners you are actually directing your ire against. How many own second homes and have expensive cars. What would you actually consider to be an expensive car.

I think your argument loses some of its force because of your caustic invective.

You point out that the young will be more economically affected by this Covid recession than the old, which as I've previously pointed out is true of every recession.

I think the opposite is also true in that the young will be more (beneficially) affected by any future economic growth.

What pensioners have is (IMO) more economic stability and isolation from any kind of economic upheaval.

You're proposing to reduce this stability and isolation so that all those who can afford it, help share the burden of this recession - fair enough.

Shouldn't something therefore be done to also ensure more equitable benefit from future economic growth?

Since when has the State pension been classified as a benefit & are you really suggesting that it should be means tested because that’s how your rant above reads?

For clarity I’m not yet of pensionable age So obviously not one of these minted pensioners  you despise, just intrigued as to your thoughts On this.

Going to University is very much a middle class dominated thing. The numbers from the middle classes are way over 50% and have been for a long time. There is plenty of room for fair and sensible expansion in social groups C2DE. Reducing places in Universities will cause a major political problem given the impact on middle class parents.

Thanks for your polytechnic point...people forget (or apply dirty spin tactics towards) Blair's target for all HE, including HE college qualifications like HND. This was only to try and pull us back towards the level of the most skilled economies in the world. Right now degree appenticeships are a much cheaper form of HE for the student, yet they not as full as they could be.

I recognise there are real problems because of political decisions (or lack of them!) but won't blame the old.  I said the following last year:

"The impact on professional classes has been huge if you are not from a rich family. As someone from a working class background I left University with about 10k savings (about £30k in current terms with inflation) having had a grant, no fees and a good holiday job. As a young academic starting off I could then afford to buy a house whose value when the mortgage was paid had increased significantly ahead of inflation. I've had an enjoyable career and will retire soon on a final salary pension worth just over half my current pay and get a state pension from age 67.  Those from working class backgrounds a decade older than me could afford to buy posh middle class places... typically worth £400k to £1million now; academic life was a breeze for them and a good proportion left with generous pension enhancements and all got the state pension at 65 (or women at 60). Graduates right now from a similar background and holiday working in good jobs and looking to enter academia have average debts of £50k with slim chances of buying a house for a decade  and a pension currently worth about £200k less according to some recent calculations, the state pension will come at 70. The job is way more stressful than when I started... so much so I simply don't recommend it unless its an absolutely clear 'need'. I see some good academics struggling to cope in their late 40s. My experience and its comparison with the past and the likely future seems common when I talk to other professionals."

Why shouldn’t the young pay for it?

They have youth, energy, drive, health and new technologies on their side. 

It has always been the case that those healthy people of working age have the ability to support the very young and the very old. That’s how our society works.

I know the young feel this is unfair, but it really isn’t. I really don’t know what’s happened to us.

Plenty of old people have "energy drive, health and new technologies on their side". We need to resolve the problems we face fairly, not rely on ageist stereotypes.

Indeed. The more government push the more people feel pressured and resist. The difference between someone saying "this is totally voluntary and will never be compulsory, here's the data and the conclusion the experts have drawn. We feel this would benefit you and society at large. If you have questions here's resources to find out more" and perhaps even offer actual incentives eg. tax relief, vouchers or something if after 6-12months there's still a decent proportion not getting on board. You know, treating people with dignity and respect.

Conversely you can demand they do it, shame them for not being immediately on board, take away their job, ability to access services previously taken for granted, fine them, physically force them, make everyone hold a passport and empower the general public to discriminate and pry into previously private medical data.

I know which I'd prefer. Pretending the latter doesn't then lead to a fundamental change in the way our society will operate is beyond naïve.

Not to mention it would seem the majority of vaccine resistant people would belong to BAME communities, so being pro-BAME discrimination wasn't how I would have predicted the wind would blow.

We are talking about timespans of over 100 years, not 20. I’ll help for the next 15, after that it’s up to my kids and grand kids. There’s nothing ageist about it. It’s harsh reality. 

You do have a real bug about the 25% tax free allowance that is a one off option available to payable drawing down from a pension.As is always the case there is a bit more to this when you look at it in greater detail.. First of all people often draw down more than the 25% and pay tax on it. I read last week that the treasury earns about £ 9 billion a year extra as a result( or some equivalent large number). Its amazing how many people actual pay alot of tax when they use this " benefit."

It also works well at the bottom end so to speak in that if you have a pension pot of say only  I think its £30k ( which is not much) you can withdraw the lot tax free.

You get a 25% statutory tax free cash allowance across your entire pension pot.

So if you have a hundred grand, and you decide to opt for Income Drawdown rather than the purchase of an annuity, then you say okay I am going to take, I dunno, £40k and then you get 25% of that tax free because the 25% tax free allowance in the total pot is always reflected in portions you drawdown.

The Scheme Rules tend to get involved though. You can often, under a lot of Schemes, not actually take income drawdown and to do that you'll need to transfer to another provider. Once your pot (and in fact the value of ALL you non-state pensions) gets below £30k you have a statutory right to take that as a single lump... with 25% tax free and the rest taxed at your income rate.

Incidentally if you have below £2k in any arrangement, you can always take it, no matter what you have, on account of I guess it being a nuisance to transfer arrangement (and it definitely can be).

If you are a lucky bastard and your pension arrangement exceeds the lifetime allowance then you get to contribute the salary of more nurses through a big tax hit unless you asked HMRC in the past to please not reduce the allowance for you and then you pay less. But also you can't pay into other schemes if you do that. It's complicated. I once saw someone accidentally breach the terms of their fixed protection certificate and it cost em about half a million in tax, lol.

Anyway pensions are complicated and also I think it is right that we give tax breaks to contributions (with the Annual Allowance limit), but tax them as income, as that encourages people to save and then when they take them later in life it gives them the tax free base rate. That's a good and sensible set-up. We want to encourage people to save. We should also be saying, however, that Employers are required to put in an amount equal to 10% of their employers salary into their pension fund. And in all fairness we could say if you submit your pension contributions bill you get a tax break on that amount in your profits, so it's not the end of the world. But still.

Point is, pensions now are shit. Truly shit. Anyone who thinks that pensions now are as good as they were thirty years ago is, uh, just frankly wrong. 

You are of course right in principle. Where this starts to become a little more nuanced is when the societal benefits that are being paid for are not available to the people paying for them, not because they are offered at a different stage in life but because they have been withdrawn altogether. That is inevitable, as what tax payer money is being spent on over the years will always change, but it should at least be acknowledged by the "back in my day" brigade (note that I am not in any way equating a generation to that).

Maybe we all should not be allowed to live so long into our old age ..........that is the real killer on pensions alongside pension schemes having to be safer and take less risks to get better returns.

Annuity rates are definitely worse because people live longer. The NHS is under pressure because people live longer. The cost of state pensions and therefore government finances is worse. 

The problem is... what's the solution to that? There isn't really one. Not outside of really encouraging people now to be healthier and fitter so that when they get older they can retire later and don't need as much healthcare, and accepting pensions and healthcare for the elderly are going to cos us a lot more, and we can't just ask the younger generations to shoulder that cost.

By the same token its unreasonable to ask business to bear that cost.....not easy to square the circle.........which is why nobody tackle it.

So someone with a modest 100k pension pot wold pay some tax if they withdrew 30k, but someone with a million pound one could get £250,000 tax free. I think I understand why Jon has bee in his bonnet.

Well, there are well over 120,000 less 'useless,old, fat, Brexit-voting, smug OAP leeches' to ruin the lives of the 'young' around than there would have been. That should cheer up anyone 'young' whose future has been blighted for ever.

More and more work is going to be done by fewer and fewer people and more and more machines as we move in to the future.

At some point the links between working and quality of life need to be broken.  These links include the obvious ones of money/resources and also the more subtle about what makes us value ourselves and others, and how we meaningfully use our time to be happy and improve  the future for our descendants.

The way we're going, it's going to be a two tier society where most people loose.  

Yet people in the UK are no longer living longer and covid impact will dent that further... this is one reason annuity rates have improved (the bigger reason being people have to opt in so the provider needs to make the product competitive). I completely agree with your view that pensions are much worse than 30 years ago ("truly shit" might be a bit OTT for some schemes). The sad thing is if the valuation of DB pensions was fairer they would still be a very useful pension system. The Coal miners scheme continuing surplus adding money to government coffers at hundreds of millions every year shows how overly conservative the current DB valuation system really is. Given this, there is a solution possible.

https://www.professionalpensions.com/opinion/3033124/death-discount-rate-fu...

"Returning to the USS, according to its reports and accounts for the year ended 31 March 2017 it has achieved a return of 12% per annum over the last five years, while the total value of the fund, net of contributions and benefits, increased from £34.2bn to £60.5bn between 2012 and 2017.

Yet here - almost unbelievably - is an extract from the 2017 report and accounts: "…the deficit on the technical provisions basis … has increased from £5.3bn in 2014 to £12.6bn at 31 March 2017. The investment performance … has not outweighed the effect of the fall in discount rates which has led to the liabilities increasing at a faster rate … over the period."

There is an elephant in the room. What we are witnessing is not prudence; it is prudence gone mad.

First Actuarial, on behalf of the UCU, has developed a USS cashflow forecast, and also calculated the scheme's break-even discount rates of the kind alluded to earlier. The results are striking. Despite its supposed £12.6bn deficit, at current contribution rates the scheme can pay benefits until at least 2068 with virtually zero reliance on either capital gains or investment income. Furthermore, the break-even discount rates for both past and future service are well below the expected returns on equities and property. On any reasonable calculation, the USS is in perfect health. The biggest risks it faces are bad accounting and poor regulation.

Fortunately, there are signs that the industry might be receptive to change. Michael O'Higgins, who was chairman of TPR from 2011 to 2014, is open to the idea that cashflow forecasts might be a way forward, writing in Professional Pensions that they make it "much plainer what incremental investment return would be needed to close any cash flow gaps, and trustees and employers could together consider whether any additional investment risk to achieve that increment was worth taking, or whether additional contributions would be preferable".

Perhaps the elephant is visible after all. But changes to the accounting and regulatory framework need to be made quickly, while there is still something left to save."

Yeah they both get the same tax free amount. Although the person with a million quid probably got less tax relief putting it in. That said, the index linked annuity coming off that 75% remaining on the million quid pot amounts to roughly 30k per annum, so pretty good! But not so much that you are absolutely rolling in it.

The person with 100k in their pot... isn't retiring. Not off that. If you want to retire off a pot, you probably want to be looking at having half a million in the pot to get a pension of about 15k and also getting your state pension on top. You can use your 25% tax free cash to pay off your mortgage.

A million quid is a nice big pension pot. But it's not going to give you the income of a wealthy person. It's going to give you an income that is probably less than what the average person in their 60s earns.

A bit more difficult to do than in practise as often there can be limits in pension schemes anyway.So whilst nice in theory not many do.And it comes back to my earlier point, probably not many have that option anyway and it really is not going to suddenly fill the coffers.

Anyway if you havd the sort of money in a scheme and you were then faced with a new tax on that 25%  what would you do. You would just not take the benefit.

Its all a bit self defeating in the end.Its one of the issues with tax reforms in a mature economy, when you tinker around with the edges, there is usually very little you can do to fill big gaps.

And vindicative taxes never work.Sound good on paper , but in reality have little overall effect.

They used to bear that cost, in fact they used to bear at least twice that cost. 

The idea that a business should be putting in 10% of their employees salaries into their pensions is not particularly outrageous or wild; they're already required to put in... 3% I think?

Someone, somewhere, needs to start putting a lot of money into these pensions. And the young can't really do that, not while also paying rent and saving up a deposit for the house they need to have fully paid off to retire. Or if we are going to expect the young to pay for their own retirements, we should probably stop asking them to pay for someone else's at the same time, at a time when their employment opportunities have dropped through a hole in the floor.

Covid deaths have saved the govt £1.9 billion on forecast state pensions so far, somewhere on the BBC.

Then a business can become uncompetitive and folds, vicious circle.

Anyway things to do, so will back out of further discussion.

that is precisely why we should not be divided by squabbling instead of tackling the rulers over this kind of stuff

I was brought up to be proud to be British but with Brexit, the current lot in charge and stuff like this I feel we have a lot to be ashamed of

Except that someone with a £1m has put that £1m in in the first place. It’s their money and they’re paying at the same rate. 

There’s nothing wrong with it. 
 

It’s not about penalising the high earners, it should be addressing the problems of low wages in the first place.

As was pointed out, you’re going to be paying a hell of a lot of VAT or Stamp Duty when you spend that £250k. If you tax it then the person with it in their pension will just keep it there and spend it slowly. 

Firstly you're not being forced to have a vaccine, lets get a grip on that. You aren't going to be forced but you probably won't be able to travel freely if you choose not to have one, your call.

What if that 2-5% (source?), the marginal gain some sort of compulsion or significant pressure (carrot or stick) might deliver, if it were enough to push R below 1 nationally, to put covid on the slow road toward elimination rather than deadly and economically crippling seasonal scourge. What if it meant not needing expensive intrusive ongoing monitoring, disruptive distancing, periodic closures, that we did not suffer long term travel restrictions... Would you consider it justifiable then? Your arguments are all about personal freedom and economic activity but what if the choice you're defending actually harms both?

The first indication you get of vaccine evasion will be new 'lockdown' measures and the long wait for evolved vaccines. The probability of a vaccine evading variant emerging is close to 1, the question is really how long it might take. The more covid we tolerate, the more people who remain unvaccinated, the sooner that day comes, the worse the long run economic damage and death toll.

Ignorance I can understand but the mentality of people who choose a dangerous infection over a safe vaccine, who choose to endanger others to feel they have agency, I don't get it.

jk

Never said we are being forced, I'm against being forced going forward as some are making noises for. If people weren't mentioning 'no jab no job' and vaccine passports I'd be quiet. I accept other countries may have differing opinions in which I have little to no say. It's not worth either of our times arguing points that aren't being made.

Genuine 'carrot' incentives I'm fine with, as long as they aren't actually surreptitious coercion tactics (another user on another thread suggested casual blackmailing labelled as incentive which I found repugnant). I don't need to address the stick as you've already ensured we very much have a grip on the fact that it isn't happening which is jolly good.

The 2-5% is estimation for the sake of discussion, assuming 90% voluntary uptake as often touted and 5-8% medical exemption. 

but the majority of people with that sort of pension would have avoided paying 40% tax.

I've done it myself, but after reading these threads I'm not exactly comfortable with it.

Too late for many now,  but I think a flat rate of 25% tax relief on pensions, for all earners, would be a good thing. As you say, that might result in some high earners spending more of  their money now rather than squirrelling it away in a pension.

Somebody correct me if I've got this wrong but I think this is how it works...

There's a real systemic failure in DB pension fund values in company (or institution) accounts in that the value of the fund fluctuates wildly with market values. So the accounts might show a shortfall (compared with actuarily determined funding needs) that might not be there if the accounting date was (for example) a month later.

The company then needs to react to this shortfall by committing to input funds to make up the shortfall; it's all very (annually) short-term knee-jerk reactive.

What needs to be done is some kind of smoothing filter so that the only thing that needs to be reacted to is a long term trend that definitively shows whether a DB pension is really going to be under or over funded.

Actually, I wonder about that rate of medical exemption too.  I'm struggling to think of a valid medical reason for not having one of the current vaccines.

Back in the mists of time, vaccines were often 'live attenuated' virus - that is, a less nasty version of a disease-causing virus.  The problem was that even an attenuated virus could be dangerous to people who were immunocompromised in some way.  The current vaccines are either completely synthetic or have a viral vector lacking the bits it would need to replicate.

Some people are prone to severe hypersensitivity reactions and the Pfizer vaccine does contain PEG, to which a tiny proportion of people can have an adverse reaction, but generally such people have a history of this.  They can have the Oxford vaccine that doesn't have PEG-containing lipid nanoparticles and, in any event, people with any history of anaphylaxis are monitored (and can be treated).

I guess there must be some absolute contraindications to vaccination, and I'll look into it more when I have time, but even for those with a severely impaired immune response (transplant recipients, for instance), it's hard for me to see how it could be more dangerous than contracting the virus.  The worst that could happen is that the vaccine doesn't work.  My sense is that much of this received wisdom is based on an outdated understanding of the risks.     

Edit:  Something else I've just thought of is the problem with the early polio vaccines contaminated by SV40 virus - and perhaps the concern that any vaccine grown mammalian cells might be contaminated with some undetected (and perhaps unknown) virus or provirus.  The Oxford viral vector, is indeed, grown in (extremely carefully screened) human HEK293 cells, but we can now easily detect any contaminants - and the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have never seen a living cell of any kind. 

And for certain types of pension, if they were started long enough ago (pre 95 I think), you can get more than 25% out tax free (up to 100%) depending on the size of the fund compared with maximum earnings during the period when contributions were being made.

I believe there’s a limit to what proportion of your salary you can put into a pension before paying tax. £40k?

Employers have a responsibility to protect their customers' and their employees' health, also the profitability and viability of the business. Unvaccinated people threaten both, new hires are likely to be the only group they can actually fully control in that respect. Actions (or inaction in your case) have consequences, bleating about resulting exclusion it isn't going to win you any sympathy, if you choose to put people at unnecessary risk expect there to be a price.

I don't know what you're alluding to. What bribe would persuade you to get vaccinated?

Right. You didn't address the meat of the question attached to that query. Care to?

jk

I think so, but is it a relatively recent rule change? Even so, I've friends, 50's, own home, kids left home, decent pension scheme already, who have/are going to put away 100's thousands over a few years to avoid paying 40% tax and they can currently get it back without paying any. I'm not 100% convinced about society benefiting greatly from this, as in many cases their objective is similar to mine, that is, to retire early, rather than spend the money immediately. On that point, and I accept that this is purely from personal observation and very simplistic. In our village there has been a spate of new conservatories/extensions/driveways over the last month or so. This is basically retirees spending money they haven't been able to spend over the last year. Now since a few have had there second jab, the new kitchens/bathrooms have just started. I take your point that local tradespeople are benefiting from the work this is providing, but can't help feeling that some of that money had been paid in tax, then the tradespeople could be employed building more social housing.

What do you do when / if a signifiacant proportion of people don't get vaccinated?

Suppose 50% get jabbed and the others don't, do you then incentivise the remaining 50%?

Don't the first 50% then get pissed of because the second 50% actually got a present, for being dicks, when, "we just did what was the right thing to do"?

Shouldn't the fact you're being given a vaccine which could save you, and your loved ones,  from disease, be enough incentive?

It should be and it is at the moment. So let’s worry about that later. 

Yes, in simplistic control theory terms you are sort of using a differential controller. It's not just a smoothing filter needed though (some integral and proportional control). There is arguably slightly too much prudence even in standard times (let alone the weird gilts situation we have had since the 2008 crash partly due to QE). Pay-outs in the closed Coal Miners scheme turned out a good bit lower than they could have been, very much to the profit of the government despite dire predictions from the usual suspects in the Telegraph (Ralfe) when the government took over the scheme. As another example pay growth in USS is assumed always to be above inflation, very different to the reality. Pension raids when the scheme is in 'surplus' due only to the valuation mechanism should be illegal. The method used by First Actuarial for USS could be used by TPR and this would make a very effective and fair pension scheme available again much more widely in the UK.

I was gobsmacked when I first saw those USS numbers (12% annual investment growth over 3 years leading to a larger fund deficit!!!!!!!??????) and so looked into things in more detail for my branch USS members (I'm not in USS).

It wouldn't have been paid in tax, though. If there is no incentive to save it would have gone on buy to let bricks and mortar investment.

The government needs people to save for personal pensions because state pensions aren't going to exist, at least as a liveable income, for much longer.

Well you can only put away £40,000 a year into a pension  tax free anyway. After that you are hit with tax, so they cannot do what you are suggesting.

Thats been in place for years.

This is a long thread and I may have missed it, but most of these arguments appear to be based on perceived "fairness", but is the argument no instead that, through vaccines, we're trying to achieve good ol' herd immunity and until that is done "none of us are safe until all of us are safe"?

Again, apologies if I missed that bit.

Very aptly OMM just shared this on the other channel.

https://twitter.com/larryandpaul/status/1369280900169629697?s=20

Unless it's in a pension proxy like an expensive main residence or in a Trust for your kids or a dodgy tax haven scheme using loopholes not yet closed.

Not sure that's the right way to plan ahead, sounds like the Johnson method, to me.

Sorry......it just does not work like that.You cannot exceed that 40 k limit no matter where you put the money. ( even if its to buy a property through a SIPP)

Not sure I follow, do I need to tell my friend they can't do this. I'm making the numbers up but they aren't far from the actual ones. He earns 85k so can avoid paying any 40% tax by putting 40k away for 6/7 years. This puts about 250k extra into his already decent pension pot.This means he can retire in his late 50's rather than early 60's because  assuming his pension pot is now worth about 800k he can  withdraw 200k tax free and have a similar pension to the one he would have without the "extra" contributions.

I agree, which is why I am in favour of a higher (25-30%) rate of tax relief for middle and low earners, just not convinced that high earners need to benefit to the tune of 40%.

Not really. Making plans is one thing. Advocating implementing a system that will create a two tier society just in case people don’t do what they are asked is another. 
 

Effectively you’re arguing at cross purposes. 
 

Currently there is no need for vaccination passports. Plan for the possibility of them being needed by all means. But don’t implement them just because you’re worried people won’t do as you ask them. 
 

Look at lockdown 1. We had two weeks of people being asked to think about working from home and limiting social contact. People didn’t. So we bought in harsher measures. That’s the way we do things in the U.K.

I'll admit I don't know a lot about pensions/tax avoidance and didn't know there was a "taper" on the maximum contributions, probably because I don't know many people who earned more than 110k (200k now).

600 million might not be that much in the current circumstances but do the top 1% of earners really need a tax break on their pension contributions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pensions-tax-changes-to-income-t...  

Who's trying to win sympathy? It's about making sure we don't devolve into a totally monitored and centrally controlled state. As long as you're open about being for coercive measures that result in exclusion from working and living normally then we can just disagree on that. Why can't you insist on flu or any other vaccination or jab in workplaces working to this same logic? Employers certainly have a responsibility to evaluate the risk, but as yet we don't know what the risk is once we have assumed 90% uptake, natural immunity, better treatments etc. Do you just want to assume the worst and enforce these measures with immediate effect? State explicitly what are you willing to do for an extra 1% uptake.

You mentioned carrot and sticks, all I'm saying is if we desperately need above the voluntary uptake then go carrot.

What can I say to what ifs? What if it does the exact opposite of your proposition. I don't see that the threat is as high as some are assuming post-voluntary-vaccination. Are you really so keen for possibly permanent invasive measures for what is actually unproven assumption?

As I agree for a formal pension vehicle, yet many use different forms of investment to provide their 'pension'.

As long as he sticks to £40 k a year he is fine.Nothing wrong with that.By the way thank the Drs and Consultants for the continuance and upping of that limit.

You can bring forward unused allowance from previous years mind you

That said you also lose allowance as your income from all sources goes up past a certain point (over a hundred grand at least, not sure exactly what though).

Yeah you work out how much tax free cash you could have had from the Scheme based on the old calc on the day it changed on 06/04/2006 and then apply an increase calculation and so on. It's a bit complex but I wrote a spreadsheet to do it for me ages ago so I can't remember that actual maths

Hate to correct you are still only able to put that monetary value in a year tax free for " any " pension irrespective of the end investment.That is if you want the benefit of that tax fee allowance and for it to be structured as a pension vehicle.

Trusts etc are not pensions.

Vey little. And you can only do it back for a couple of years.

That benefit closed down a few years ago( it was pretty open ended until about 10 years ago from memory)

This is tinfoil hat stuff. Public health interventions, government overreach in your parlance are the reason most of us made it through infancy, why we have our own teeth in adulthood, why our wallpaper and water supply doesn't rot our brains and void our bowels, why we aren't crippled by polio, scarred by smallpox, coughing TB and blood in midlife, why HIV isn't widespread...

Some do (among other jabs), others make them available to staff because they are of net benefit.

Explicitly: It depends how much we need it. Mandating vaccination for high transmission risk jobs would be a starting point I'd consider but I'd want to have worked through the persuasion/education options first.

You keep coming back to 90% uptake. That is bearing up so far but with the important caveat: it is in care home residents and the over 75s, the group for whom covid is exceptionally deadly and only so far for the first dose. It's not licensed in children yet, we'll wait to see if it ever is, that's 20+% of the population for starters.

The government's 75% estimate still seems reasonable for the long run and is pretty close even at 100% efficacy (unrealistic) to the figure needed to keep R<1 for the more infectious new variants (Likely having an R of 3 to 4 in a pre-2020 like society). Small shifts either way in vaccine uptake and distribution could yet make the difference between needing winter lockdowns and reactive localised control measures in the coming years or not.

Ok. What kind of carrot will get you vaccinated?

I'm keen to see this disease neutered, to see people getting back to work and play safely. I'd like my child to be able meet her grandparents while they're still with us.

jk

We are onto over 55s in my area and no sign of huge numbers of anti-vaxers. 
 

My guess is any problems in uptake will be with women in their 20s and 30s. I can’t see any other group of people being particularly worried. 

How would we know?

Anyway, the 90% Tom quotes appears to have been drawn from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-uptake-plan... which references that group I mentioned.

Why?

Anti-vax nonsense has until recently been largely the preserve of privileged yummy-mummys worrying about little Quentin catching autism and the sort of men who exist on whole grain, protein shakes and instagram. That seems to have changed as the opportunity to widen destabilising fault lines in society has been enthusiastically exploited by a different group of bullshit peddlers to a different end.

jk

So you're now conflating me being specifically against mandatory vaccinations, leveraging peoples livelihoods to comply with vaccination, and making people walk around with passports ad infinitum without solid evidence and justification, with being against clean drinking water? I don't consider installing sewerage government overreach either just for the record.

No-one has problems with making them available. Where are mandatory flu jabs required? Would you say this is the minority of workplaces? Is anyone likely to be fired for not having a vaccine as it stands? Would this be an unprecedented step not taken lightly?

Good we agree then, no need to jump the gun at all. Wait and see.

Why would it not be licensed for children? 

We can speculate on how small shifts would need to be but I can't accept the measures people are proposing based on that speculation.

Me personally? I'm not even saying I won't get vaccinated, only stating the problems I have with forcing such a thing. If hypothetically it came to V-day and I wasn't convinced it would provide any benefit or even actively cause me harm then no amount of carrots would do it. Of course sticks wouldn't either, they'd lead to some kind of backlash.

They can meet long before vaccines are offered to everyone, even now there would be little chance of transmission in a controlled setting. Seems a bit melodramatic. At a certain point you have to weigh your odds and take your chances if the stakes are sufficiently high eg. two generations of your family never having a chance to meet. 

Those people are the 10%ers. 
 

In most of life you’ll get 10% fully for something. 10% fully against it and 80% just along for the ride. 
 

Goes pretty much for everything that fits a normal distribution. 

What do you think about a Superspreading Passport?

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2020/02/04/sewage-sludge-landspreading-env...

given that early on in this pandemic the virus could be found in sewage and is now being examined as an indicator of an outbreak - apparently an infection rate of one person in 1000 can be detected in sewage.

It's not just mandatory vaccination you're wound up about though is it, it's the idea someone might not offer you a job because you choose to put others at risk by refusing vaccination.

Time will tell whether this proves practical or commonplace or legal or whether it's specifically outlawed.

I'm not aware of mandatory flu jabs though they're commonly offered and taken in health and social care, because why wouldn't you want to safeguard those around you for negligible risk and inconvenience. I'm pretty sure hepatitis vaccination is mandatory for some lab and healthcare jobs.

Absolutely.

Because so far as we're aware covid poses very little risk to otherwise healthy children, vaccinating them may well primarily be of benefit to others. I don't know which way it'll go, we don't routinely vaccinate kids against chickenpox because it's adults who would be the main beneficiaries of such a policy. Other countries take a different approach, it's a finely balanced argument. If the existence of chickenpox in the adult population caused significant social and economic harm to the children as covid does I suppose that may be factored into the calculation, we'll see. My guess is it will be approved but it could be quite a slow process.

What about if/when it ceases to be speculation, if it becomes clear not enough people have stepped up to free us from this cycle of lockdowns. Will you have yours then?

Anyway, while you might not like restrictions imposed on the vaccine shy if they do catch on you'll have little choice but to accept them or get with the program, don't expect much public sympathy for your position.

Pretty sure you previously said you'll be refusing. Anyway, how could you not be convinced it would be of benefit? It effectively protects you from a dangerous pathogen, it protects those around you from a dangerous pathogen, there is negligible risk and without 'herd immunity' the economy within which you survive dies.

No they can't, we're separated by a closed border. I haven't seen them for a year, my daughter never has. If this drags on another year, who know, neither of them are in great health 

jk

Like opinions on the EU in 2015.

Until something skews it.

jk

Yes. Exactly. 10% Remainers. 10% leavers. 80% really can’t be arsed with the whole thing. 30% didn’t even vote. A big chunk of those who voted didn’t really know why they were voting or what for. We’ve had 5 years of 20% of the population shouting at each other believing they’re more important than each other. 

Just because you've got someone in a different age group that you've been having a name-calling slagging match with for 20 years (??) doesn't mean I have ever joined in.

For your information I don't even know what "millenials" or "Gen Z" are. I believe "boomers" are the people a few years older than myself. I will of course google these terms in order to fully understand them.

However I have NEVER before this Covid crisis had any reason to categorise people based on age - there are far more accurate ways of doing so. But I am getting more than fed up with people who are complaining that "everybody else" is picking on them and that they are being victimised because of their age.

EVERY age has good things and bad, and it's damned stupid for people to use age as a basis for keyboard warfare. All that does is allow the idiots in charge to carry on their merry way whilst we're distracted.

Children being driven to school are aged between 5 and 18. Their parents will be (generally) between 20 and 30 years older.

Therefore said parents driving their kids to school will be between 25 and 48 years old.

So why is that the fault of the over 50's and pensioners. Or is maths not your strong point ?

IQ and stupidity are two completely different things.

The biggest idiots I have known had Doctorates in Physics, and worked for the government at a research institution.

Not vey many "bees" have a million pound pension pot though. Most would be more akin to 100k.

Your "friend" is on over 3 times the national average income, and I would suggest on roughly 5 times the national mean income. Don't you think that there aren't exactly very many in that position.

Google "millennials are killing" to see what shite we've put up with. It got to the point where actual bloody politicians were making outrageous statements, such as the reason we don't have money to buy our own house is because we like brunch and avocados. It certainly felt like you literally did join in, in this thread.

Boomers: 1946-1964. You.

Millennials: 1981-1996. Me

Zoomers (Gen Z): 1997-2012

Imagine how fed up we are having been picked on because of our age, and how bemused we have been that this suddenly became not okay as soon as the phrase "Okay Boomer" became widespread.

Agreed, 100%. Let's move on from this, but I would recommend you check out what I suggested above. It sort of falls into what Andrew Wells said, it's not (normally) that you don't care what has been going on to the younger generations, it's more like you genuinely don't know. 

My generation was driven to school (although I wasn't) l. My parents are certainly over 50's (over 70's in fact), most millennials have parents in their late 50's at the very least.

Didn't someone on question time think it was 80k was the average? I thought the mean would be higher than median due to the skewed data? It's the effect of Sellafield. Average wage round here is nearly 50k for a full time man, If you have worked there for 25 years I expect the average is even higher. I think it puts them in the top 5%, still mean well over a million with as similar or better income. I think I remember reading that there were about 250,000 people who paid the additional tax rate (over 150k?) and that generated 50 billion, which seems significant.

It''s not just high earners that can benefit, his partner works part time and should earn just over 20k, but because they don't need it at the moment it all goes in a pension with a 3k donation due to their personal allowance. They will be able to take all of this out tax free.

Millennials born between 1980 and the mid 90s will have parents in their 60s and 70s. 

According to those definitions "Boomers" spans people gong into secure work in the "white heat of technology" boom years of the 1960s right through to the worst times of the Thatcher era (my experience).  What value can there be in grouping such a wide experience of economic circumstances into one band?  Meaningless

Something I am pretty angry about is the stealing of my millennial status.  Anyone living a significant part of adult life in the late twentieth and early twenty first century is living through the turn of a millennium and is by definition leading a millennial life.  I thought of us as millennial population (I mean people at large  long before the term was used) long before such a silly minimalist narcissist usage came into use.  Do you think people in 100 years or 200 years will think such a term useful when restricted to such a silly usage? (This isn't a rant at you - at the people who appropriated the name of a group I am in for themselves)

Ah, that is a typo, it was meant to be "onwards", as in the very youngest would be late 50's. Fixing, thanks.

I wonder too. And I am only directing my ire at those who can easily afford to contribute more to try to reduce the horrendous inequality in our society, but who say that they shouldn't have to and that the costs should be borne by their children and grandchildren. 

I was trying to find some data to find out, but I'm not doing very well on finding it. In my job, I do a kind of ad hoc social survey seeing 15 pretty randomly selected people a day, from either South Lakes or Eden, skewed towards the older. It's not particularly skewed by SES: I've tested a Tory MP and a guy straight out of jail on the same day (not the same person). It's nothing like an inner city population where there'll be a lot more pensioners in poverty. The people I see day in, day out aged 65+ have plenty to spare. What proportion this is nationally I don't know, but where I am, an awful lot of them have second homes and fancy cars. Although they're not necessarily typical, there's certainly no shortage of pensioners who would do absolutely fine without their tax breaks and with reduced benefits.

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."

Yeah I really am.

Interesting point, but no.

Money buys less and less wellbeing the more you've got, which is why redistribution is desirable. Where wealth is concentrated among those with a lot of it, it's doing no work, making no contribution to human wellbeing. If a small amount of money is given to someone with none, it makes a big difference. If the spoils of economic growth go to those who already have plenty, you may as well wipe your arse on it and flush it down the loo.

You don't need youth, energy, drive and health to pay your fair share of taxes.

No problem supporting the old who need support. Not so keen on carrying those with 10 times my income, thanks. Your attempt to make the argument that working people have a moral duty to support old people regardless of their wealth, just because they're old, is rubbish.

A starting point: Isn’t fibrodysplasia accelerated by damage to muscle tissue?  If so that would rule out intra muscular injections?

Partially agree, certainly in times of plenty, the economic gap should be narrowed by pulling up those at the bottom. But I think you probably need to ensure that all strata of society benefit to help avoid divisions.

I'm old enough to remember Thatcherism, where the UK changed from something that felt like a civic society (all be it performing economically poorly) to an arena where "look after number 1 and stuff everybody else" was the mantra. We haven't recovered from that "selfish" swing yet.

I don't think we ever will!!

Sadly, and I know he would have probably have been a poor leader, and I'm not a great fan of his, but Corbyn was a chance at making that happen. I certainly know a lot of people who saw him as at least a chance of correcting the problems caused by Thatcher, and many people since her.

I think this was part of his appeal to many, obvious other people hated him, for all sorts of reason, and he didn't win, so it's all water under the bridge really, but he did give many people hope.