[ad_1]
With the gradual loosening of the crown lock, older people sometimes venture outside again. But apparently older people are still not welcome in public. As the “Tages-Anzeiger” reports, older citizens are not only seen indirectly, but also insulted and spat upon.
As a Lucerne retiree, who wants to remain anonymous, told the newspaper, two older women were seriously attacked by teenagers last weekend: the two older women spoke on a park bench in Lake Lucerne, with due distance, from the prescribed Federal Office of Public Health (BAG). Then suddenly three young men lined up in front of the two friends insulted them. After all, the teens even spit on the two women.
Impending loneliness
Reports of hostility towards older people are also increasing in the Pro Senectute organization. Since the reopening of garden centers and hardware stores last Monday, the old organization has repeatedly faced the question of why older people of all people now need to shop. From Pro Senectute’s point of view, nothing stands in the way, considering distance rules and hygiene rules.
The Swiss Council for Seniors (SSR) notes with concern the growing tensions between generations. Over 65 years of age “would look critically in public when shopping or walking, which upsets many,” says an open letter from the SSR to the Federal Council. Therefore, older people would withdraw more and more from social life and become lonely.
Organizations demand redefinition of risk group
Older people’s organizations are now calling for a redefinition of the corona risk group. Bea Heim, co-chair of the RSS: “Calling all who are at risk of retirement is not appropriate or fair.” Therefore, it is not surprising that older people are insulted on the street.
Alain Huber, director of Pro Senectute, also wants a more precise definition of the risk group. The latest research findings would show that people who are particularly at risk should not be defined solely based on age. “Adhering rigidly to the age criterion would mean that some people over the age of 65 may be unfairly excluded from public life.” (no)
