| Comment | > You can still visit others outwith the home.
Just great when its ten degrees and rainy!
> I know it isn't fair, but the virus doesn't care. We need to stop the transmission - so yes, that means the people with £5 million acreages had a better lockdown than the people in studio flats. It sucks, but that's society.
This is entirely my point though. The virus *does* strike differently. Older people are phenomenally more at risk, while also being phenomenally more likely to have a more positive experience of lockdown due to their financial and physical situation isolating them from the worst negative consequences. Meanwhile those *least* at risk are captured by the same most arduous restrictions as a 'just in case', which for them will actually open them to mental health vulnerabilities that they wouldn't gave to face otherwise.
It's as if to protect people from an acid rain they made the policy that everyone must remain in marquee shelters - and completely swooped past the fact that some people's shelters were holey and falling apart because they'd never had the resources to patch them up in advance. Forcing isolation on people who the virus does not pose a great threat to is creating a second public health crisis completely unnecessarily. |
|---|