I didn't say that the elderly deaths had affected the number of deaths of the younger generation. I said that the lockdown - or more specifically it's continuation - was affecting the health, education, employment & financial viability of the younger generation. And they matter too!
My age is irrelevant, but I have an 88-year-old father who I've been caring for daily throughout. I love him to bits, but the reality is that the younger members of my family have been incarcerated, lost jobs, lost education, and been unable to access healthcare - predominantly to protect people of his generation.
Yes, it may sound callous, but whilst my Dad has been 'saved' by the lock-down, the reality is he's highly likely to die within the next 12-18 months anyway, but my son is now furloughed and at serious risk of unemployment, with no savings to fall back on and a mortgage of 4x his former salary. He's also been unable to access the mental health services he desperately needs. My husband has been working throughout (in a school) but has had an urgent hospital appointment pushed back by 4-months and told to dial 999 if it becomes an emergency, which it may well do.
There is nothing to stop my father - or anyone else who needs/wishes to - to continue a self-imposed lockdown, but I think it incredibly selfish to expect those at minimal risk to do the same.
It seems to me that those against any easing have been been happy for food manufacturers, warehouse workers, delivery drivers, supermarket staff, pharmacists, teachers etc to continue working - but are against any easing that doesn't benefit them personally. Sounds like the height of selfishness to me.
By the way, I don't expect to get anything from my father - I worked hard too and have my own home & money, thank you, and I don't think it unreasonable to want the same opportunities for my son. After all, who pays for the NHS if no-one is working or spending money?